Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31093563›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2018

Quantifying the added value of new biomarkers: how and how not.

Nancy R Cook

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Can prediction models for hospital readmission be improved by incorporating patient-reported outcome measures? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Predicting recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: a systematic review of prognostic models.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Collagen type I degradation peptide as a predictive biomarker for mortality in ST-elevated myocardial infarction.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nancy R CookDivision of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 900 Commonwealth Ave. East, Boston, MA 02215 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9705-0842

Funding

Novel Applications of Risk Reclassification Methods in CVD Risk PredictionR01HL113080 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI COOK, NANCY R · 2013 to 2016
$1.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL113080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few decades, interest in biomarkers to enhance predictive modeling has soared. Methodology for evaluating these has also been an active area of research. There are now several performance measures available for quantifying the added value of biomarkers. This commentary provides an overview of methods currently used to evaluate new biomarkers, describes their strengths and limitations, and offers some suggestions on their use.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCalibrationClinical utilityModel fitReclassification

Identifiers

PMID31093563
PMCPMC6460632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.