ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Efficient risk-based collection of biospecimens in cohort studies: designing a prospective study of diagnostic performance for multicancer detection tests.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current Assessment of Existing Biospecimen Use in Population-Based Cancer Research.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In cohort studies, it can be infeasible to collect specimens on an entire cohort. For example, to estimate sensitivity of multiple multi-cancer detection (MCD) assays, we desire an extra 80 mL of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood, but this much extra blood is too expensive for us to collect on everyone. We propose a novel epidemiologic study design that efficiently oversamples those at highest baseline disease risk from whom to collect specimens, to increase the number of future cases with cfDNA blood collection. The variance reduction ratio from our risk-based subsample versus a simple random (sub)sample (SRS) depends primarily on the ratio of risk model sensitivity to the fraction of the cohort selected for specimen collection subject to constraining the risk model specificity. In a simulation where we chose 34% of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial cohort at highest risk of lung cancer for cfDNA blood collection, we could enrich the number of lung cancers 2.42-fold. The standard deviation of lung-cancer MCD sensitivity was 31%-33% reduced versus SRS. Risk-based collection of specimens on a subsample of the cohort could be a feasible and efficient approach to collecting extra specimens for molecular epidemiology.
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.