Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40784889›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2025

Calibrating multiplex serology for Helicobacter pylori.

Emmanuelle A Dankwa, Martyn Plummer, Daniel Chapman, Rima Jeske, Julia Butt, Michael Hill, Tim Waterboer, Iona Y Millwood, Ling Yang, Christiana Kartsonaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Emmanuelle A DankwaHarvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3084-5915
Martyn PlummerDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Daniel ChapmanClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Rima JeskeInfections and Cancer Epidemiology Division, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Julia ButtInfections and Cancer Epidemiology Division, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael HillClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Tim WaterboerInfections and Cancer Epidemiology Division, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Iona Y MillwoodClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Ling YangClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Christiana KartsonakiClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. christiana.kartsonaki@dph.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C56488/A24504Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford Pump priming award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHelicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a bacterium that colonizes the stomach and is a major risk factor for gastric cancer, with an estimated 89% of non-cardia gastric cancer cases worldwide attributable to H. pylori. Prospective studies provide reliable evidence for quantifying the association between gastric cancer and H. pylori, as they circumvent the risk of a false negative due to possible reduction in antibody levels before cancer development.

methodsIn a large-scale prospective study within the China Kadoorie Biobank, H. pylori infection is being analysed as a risk factor for gastric cancer. The presence of infection is typically determined by serological tests. The immunoblot test, although well established, is more labour intensive and uses a larger amount of plasma than the alternative high-throughput multiplex serology test. Immunoblot outputs a binary positive/negative serostatus classification, while multiplex outputs a vector of continuous antigen measurements. When mapping such multidimensional continuous measurements onto a binary classification, statistical challenges arise in defining classification cut-offs and accounting for the differences in infection evidence provided by different antigens. We discuss these challenges and propose a novel solution to optimize the translation of the continuous measurements from multiplex serology into probabilities of H. pylori infection, using classification algorithms (Bayesian additive regressive trees (BART), multidimensional monotone BART, logistic regression, random forest and elastic net). We (i) calibrate and apply classification models to predict probabilities of H. pylori infection given multiplex measurements, (ii) compare the predictive performance of the models using immunoblot as reference, (iii) discuss reasons for the differences in predictive performance and (iv) apply the calibrated models to gain insights on the relative strengths of infection evidence provided by the various antigens.

resultsAll models showed high discriminative ability with at least 95% area under the curve (AUC) estimates on the training and test data. There was no substantial difference between the performance of models on the training and test data.

conclusionsClassification algorithms can be used to calibrate the H. pylori multiplex serology test to the immunoblot test in the China Kadoorie Biobank. This study furthers our understanding of the applicability of classification algorithms to the context of serologic tests.

Indexed as

Classification algorithmsHelicobacter pyloriImmunoblotMultiplex serologyPredictionSupervised learning

Identifiers

PMID40784889
PMCPMC12337413

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.