ReviewExpert review of gastroenterology & hepatology2025
Misinterpretation and misapplication of biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease: how do we avoid this?
Review in Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpreting Biomarker Discordance in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Beyond Fecal Calprotectin and C-Reactive Protein.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Translational opportunities in aptamer and nanobody lateral flow assays within the WHO REASSURED framework.Sensors & diagnostics · 2026Review
- Drug-disease interactions in inflammation: mechanisms, clinical Impact, and future directions.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
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
introductionThe management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has evolved substantially over the past decade, with the emergence of new advanced therapies presenting unprecedented challenges in clinical decision-making. While these therapies provide patients with more opportunities to get better, biomarkers to guide their use remain elusive. AREAS COVERED: This article highlights the challenges associated with biomarker discovery, interpretation, and application in IBD - based on literature review, first-hand experience of biomarker discovery, and personal opinion. We highlight problems including the misinterpretation of predictive capabilities, lack of independent validation, and reverse causation in retrospective studies, and explain why associations with clinical parameters or seropositivity to microbial antigens often fail to meet the rigorous performance metrics required for clinical utility. The relative need for different biomarkers is also discussed - particularly in light of recent evidence from the PROFILE trial, which emphasizes the considerably greater risk posed by uncontrolled disease than by the potential side-effects of medications. EXPERT OPINION: Despite multiple challenges, the potential of biomarkers for precision medicine in IBD remains promising, particularly in combination with other clinical and biochemical parameters. Further research into combinatorial biomarker approaches is needed, but must be combined with learning how to communicate results that are inherently uncertain.
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.