Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31373935›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2019

An Empirical Validation of the Within-subject Biospecimens Pooling Approach to Minimize Exposure Misclassification in Biomarker-based Studies.

Céline Vernet, Claire Philippat, Lydiane Agier, Antonia M Calafat, Xiaoyun Ye, Sarah Lyon-Caen, Pierre Hainaut, Valérie Siroux, Enrique F Schisterman, Rémy Slama

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Associations of endocrine disrupting chemicals with anogenital distance across infancy.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Relevance and challenges of exposome studies for environmental health research.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Céline VernetFrom the Inserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.
Claire PhilippatFrom the Inserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.
Lydiane AgierFrom the Inserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.
Antonia M CalafatOrganic Analytical Toxicology Branch, Division of Laboratory Sciences, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Xiaoyun YeOrganic Analytical Toxicology Branch, Division of Laboratory Sciences, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Sarah Lyon-CaenFrom the Inserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.
Pierre HainautInserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Tumor Molecular Pathology and Biomarkers, Grenoble, France.
Valérie SirouxFrom the Inserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.
Enrique F SchistermanEpidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, MD.
Rémy SlamaFrom the Inserm, CNRS, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institute for Advanced Biosciences (IAB), U1209, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin-subject biospecimens pooling can theoretically reduce bias in dose-response functions from biomarker-based studies when exposure assessment suffers from classical-type error. However, collecting many urine voids each day is cumbersome. We evaluated the empirical validity of a within-subject pooling approach and compared several options to avoid sampling each void.

methodsIn 16 pregnant women who collected a spot of each urine void over several nonconsecutive weeks, we compared concentrations of 10 phenols in daily, weekly, and pregnancy within-subject pools. We pooled either three or all daily samples. In a simulation study using these data, we quantified bias in dose-response functions when using one to 20 urine samples per subject to assess methylparaben (a compound with moderate within-subject variability) and bisphenol A (high variability) exposures.

resultsCorrelations between exposure estimates from pools of all and of only three voids per day were above 0.80 for all time windows and compounds, except for benzophenone-3 and triclosan in the daily time window (correlations, 0.57-0.68). With one spot sample to assess pregnancy exposure, correlations were all below 0.74. Using only one biospecimen led to attenuation bias in the dose-response functions of 29% (methylparaben) and 69% (bisphenol A); four samples for methylparaben and 18 for bisphenol A decreased bias to 10%.

conclusionsFor nonpersistent chemicals, collecting and pooling three samples per day instead of all daily samples efficiently estimates exposures over a week or more. Collecting around 20 biospecimens can strongly limit attenuation bias for nonpersistent chemicals such as bisphenol A.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignAdultBiasBiomarkersEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental PollutantsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansPhenolsPregnancyReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkersEnvironmental PollutantsPhenols

Identifiers

PMID31373935
PMCPMC8988263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.