ReviewEpilepsy currents
The BEST Conceivable Way to Talk About Epilepsy Biomarkers.
Review in Epilepsy currents. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The levels of miR-155 in epilepsy patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Human biomarker navigator.iMeta · 2026Review
- Optimization of cortico-cortical spectral response analysis parameters for seizure onset zone localization.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- An updated overview of the search for biomarkers of osteoporosis based on human proteomics.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2024Review
- High frequency oscillation network dynamics predict outcome in non-palliative epilepsy surgery.Brain communications · 2024Article
- Interictal invasive very high-frequency oscillations in resting awake state and sleep.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The search for valid biomarkers to aid in epilepsy diagnosis and management is a major goal of the Epilepsy Research Benchmarks. Many papers and grants answer this call by searching for new biomarkers from a wide range of disciplines. However, the academic use of the word "biomarker" is often imprecise. Without proper definition, such work is not well-prepared to progress to the next step of translating these biomarkers into clinical use. In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health collaborated to develop the BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource as a guide to adopt formal definitions that aid in pushing successful biomarkers toward regulatory approval. Using the vignette of high-frequency oscillations, which have been proposed as a potential biomarker of several potential aspects of epilepsy, we demonstrate how improper use of the term "biomarker," and lack of a clear context of use, can lead to confusion and difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. Similar conditions are likely in many areas of biomarker research. This Resource should be adopted by all researchers developing epilepsy biomarkers. Adopting the BEST guidelines will improve reproducibility, guide research objectives toward translation, and better target the Epilepsy Benchmarks.
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.