Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38530558›Full record

ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2024

Logistic regression and other statistical tools in diagnostic biomarker studies.

Dina Mohamed Ahmed Samir Elkahwagy, Caroline Joseph Kiriacos, Manar Mansour

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 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
  15. Article
  16. Likelihood of blood culture positivity using SeptiCyte RAPID.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dina Mohamed Ahmed Samir ElkahwagyPharmaceutical Biology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, German University in Cairo, Cairo, 11835, Egypt. dina.ahmed-samir@guc.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8169-9961
Caroline Joseph KiriacosPharmaceutical Biology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, German University in Cairo, Cairo, 11835, Egypt.
Manar MansourPharmaceutical Biology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, German University in Cairo, Cairo, 11835, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A biomarker is a measured indicator of a variety of processes, and is often used as a clinical tool for the diagnosis of diseases. While the developmental process of biomarkers from lab to clinic is complex, initial exploratory stages often focus on characterizing the potential of biomarkers through utilizing various statistical methods that can be used to assess their discriminatory performance, establish an appropriate cut-off that transforms continuous data to apt binary responses of confirming or excluding a diagnosis, or establish a robust association when tested against confounders. This review aims to provide a gentle introduction to the most common tools found in diagnostic biomarker studies used to assess the performance of biomarkers with an emphasis on logistic regression.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBiomarkersHumansLogistic ModelsNeoplasmsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkerCutoffDiagnosticLogistic regressionReceiving operatic characteristicROCStatistics

Identifiers

PMID38530558
PMCPMC11333519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.