Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31750898›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2021

Statistical methods for biomarker data pooled from multiple nested case-control studies.

Abigail Sloan, Stephanie A Smith-Warner, Regina G Ziegler, Molin Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Abigail SloanDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Stephanie A Smith-WarnerDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Regina G ZieglerDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Molin WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Training Grant in Quantitative Sciences for Cancer ResearchT32CA009337 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI QUACKENBUSH, JOHN, TRIPPA, LORENZO · 1986 to 2025
$12.3M
Training in Neurostatistics and NeuroepidemiologyT32NS048005 · NINDS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI ONNELA, JUKKA-PEKKA · 2004 to 2018
$3.2M
Circulating Vitamin D Levels and Risk of Breast and Colorectal Cancer: a Pooled AR01CA152071 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SMITH-WARNER, STEPHANIE A · 2010 to 2013
$1.4M
Statistical methods for analysis of pooled continuous biomarker data arisen from multiple studiesR03CA212799 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI WANG, MOLIN · 2017 to 2018
$159k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152071NCI NIH HHS R03 CA212799NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009337NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS048005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pooling biomarker data across multiple studies allows for examination of a wider exposure range than generally possible in individual studies, evaluation of population subgroups and disease subtypes with more statistical power, and more precise estimation of biomarker-disease associations. However, circulating biomarker measurements often require calibration to a single reference assay prior to pooling due to assay and laboratory variability across studies. We propose several methods for calibrating and combining biomarker data from nested case-control studies when reference assay data are obtained from a subset of controls in each contributing study. Specifically, we describe a two-stage calibration method and two aggregated calibration methods, named the internalized and full calibration methods, to evaluate the main effect of the biomarker exposure on disease risk and whether that association is modified by a potential covariate. The internalized method uses the reference laboratory measurement in the analysis when available and otherwise uses the estimated value derived from calibration models. The full calibration method uses calibrated biomarker measurements for all subjects, including those with reference laboratory measurements. Under the two-stage method, investigators complete study-specific analyses in the first stage followed by meta-analysis in the second stage. Our results demonstrate that the full calibration method is the preferred aggregated approach to minimize bias in point estimates. We also observe that the two-stage and full calibration methods provide similar effect and variance estimates but that their variance estimates are slightly larger than those from the internalized approach. As an illustrative example, we apply the three methods in a pooling project of nested case-control studies to evaluate (i) the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of stroke and (ii) how body mass index modifies the association between circulating vitamin D levels and risk of cardiovascular disease.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasBiomarkersCalibrationCase-Control StudiesHumansBiomarkersAggregationCalibrationConditional logistic regressionNested case–control studyPooling

Identifiers

PMID31750898
PMCPMC8286552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.