Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33633815›Full record

ArticleThe annals of applied statistics2020

STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF COMBINED CATEGORICAL BIOMARKER DATA FROM MULTIPLE STUDIES.

Chao Cheng, Molin Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The annals of applied statistics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Chao ChengDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Molin WangDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Funding

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 CA212799
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the analysis of pooled data from multiple studies involving a biomarker exposure, the biomarker measurements can vary across laboratories and usually require calibration to a reference assay prior to pooling. Previous researches consider the measurements from a reference laboratory as the gold standard, even though measurements in the reference laboratory are not necessarily closer to the underlying truth in reality. In this paper we do not treat any laboratory measurements as the gold standard, and we develop two statistical methods, the exact calibration and cut-off calibration methods, for the analysis of aggregated categorical biomarker data. We compare the performance of both methods for estimating the biomarker-disease relationship under a random sample or controls-only calibration design. Our findings include: (1) the exact calibration method provides significantly less biased estimates and more accurate confidence intervals than the other method; (2) the cut-off calibration method could yield estimates with minimal bias and valid confidence intervals under small measurement errors and/or small exposure effects; (3) controls-only calibration design can result in additional bias, but the bias is minimal if the exposure effects and/or disease prevalences are small. Finally, we illustrate the methods in an application evaluating the relationship between circulating vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer risk in a pooling project.

Indexed as

Between-study variabilitycalibrationcategorical biomarker datameasurement errormultiple studies

Identifiers

PMID33633815
PMCPMC7903924

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.