ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2021
Strategies for validating biomarkers using data from a reference set.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adding Rigor to Biomarker Evaluations-EDRN Experience.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Candidate biomarkers discovered in the laboratory need to be rigorously validated before advancing to clinical application. However, it is often expensive and time-consuming to collect the high quality specimens needed for validation; moreover, such specimens are often limited in volume. The Early Detection Research Network has developed valuable specimen reference sets that can be used by multiple labs for biomarker validation. To optimize the chance of successful validation, it is critical to efficiently utilize the limited specimens in these reference sets on promising candidate biomarkers. Towards this end, we propose a novel two-stage validation strategy that partitions the samples in the reference set into two groups for sequential validation. The proposed strategy adopts the group sequential testing method to control for the type I error rate and rotates group membership to maximize the usage of available samples. We develop analytical formulas for performance parameters of this strategy in terms of the expected numbers of biomarkers that can be evaluated and the truly useful biomarkers that can be successfully validated, which can provide valuable guidance for future study design. The performance of our proposed strategy for validating biomarkers with respect to the points on the receiver operating characteristic curve are evaluated via extensive simulation studies and compared with the default strategy of validating each biomarker using all samples in the reference set. Different types of early stopping rules and boundary shapes in the group sequential testing method are considered. Compared with the default strategy, our proposed strategy makes more efficient use of the limited resources in the reference set by allowing more candidate biomarkers to be evaluated, giving a better chance of having truly useful biomarkers successfully validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.