Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31569147›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2019

Combining Biomarker Calibration Data to Reduce Measurement Error.

Neil J Perkins, Jennifer Weck, Sunni L Mumford, Lindsey A Sjaarda, Emily M Mitchell, Anna Z Pollack, Enrique F Schisterman

Abstract read
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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Neil J PerkinsFrom the Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Jennifer WeckFrom the Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Sunni L MumfordFrom the Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Lindsey A SjaardaFrom the Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Emily M MitchellCenters for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
Anna Z PollackCollege of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Enrique F SchistermanFrom the Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarker assay measurement often consists of a two-stage process where laboratory equipment yields a relative measure which is subsequently transformed to the unit of interest using a calibration curve. The calibration curve establishes the relation between the measured relative units and sample biomarker concentrations using stepped samples of known biomarker concentrations. Samples from epidemiologic studies are often measured in multiple batches or plates, each with independent calibration experiments. Collapsing calibration information across batches before statistical analysis has been shown to reduce measurement error and improves estimation. Additionally, collapsing in practice can also create an additional layer of quality control (QC) and optimization in a part of the laboratory measurement process that is often highly automated. Principled recalibration is demonstrated via. a three-step process of identifying batches where recalibration might be beneficial, forming a collapsed calibration curve and recalibrating identified batches, and using QC data to assess the appropriateness of recalibration. Here, we use inhibin B measured in biospecimens from the BioCycle study using 50 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) batches (3875 samples) to motivate and display the benefits of collapsing calibration experiments, such as detecting and overcoming faulty calibration experiments, and thus improving assay coefficients of variation from reducing unwanted measurement error variability. Differences in the analysis of inhibin B by testosterone quartile are also demonstrated before and after recalibration. These simple and practical procedures are minor adjustments implemented by study personnel without altering laboratory protocols which could have positive estimation and cost-saving implications especially for population-based studies.

Indexed as

CalibrationScientific Experimental ErrorAdolescentAdultBiomarkersEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleHumansInhibinsMenstrual CycleQuality ControlTestosteroneYoung AdultBiomarkersinhibin BInhibinsTestosterone

Identifiers

PMID31569147
PMCPMC7968112

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.