ReviewThe British journal of radiology2025
The current state of imaging biomarker development and evaluation.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI Based Radiomics as an Imaging Biomarker for Locally Advanced Carcinoma Rectum: Predicting Tumor Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy as an Organ Preservation Strategy.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Quadrato Motor Training in Parkinson's Disease: Resting-State fMRI Changes and Exploratory Whole-Brain Radiomics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Better risk stratification of colon cancer is needed, but is radiogenomics the answer?European radiology · 2025Article
- Identification of CDK1 as a Biomarker for the Treatment of Liver Fibrosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Through Bioinformatics Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
With a focus on imaging, this narrative review describes why biomarker research rarely culminates in anything clinically useful. We explain the difference between diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers and the different phases of their research. We describe what factors need consideration when designing research studies to generate evidence sufficient to translate a potential imaging biomarker into clinical practice. We emphasize the need to balance the number of biomarkers investigated with the number of available patient events, so that studies are not overwhelmed by false-positive results. We explain the need for rigorous evaluation, so that clinicians can be convinced the biomarker will work in their practice and benefit their patients. In particular, we explain why novel biomarkers should be evaluated alongside factors already known to be clinically useful, so that their incremental benefit, if any, can be determined.
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.