ArticleJournal of biological rhythms2025
Performance of Blood-Based Biomarkers for Human Circadian Pacemaker Phase: Training Sets Matter As Much As Feature-Selection Methods.
Article in Journal of biological rhythms, 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.
- Adipose Tissue Circadian Dysregulation Beyond BMI: Implications for Cardiometabolic Risk and Cardiovascular Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomarkers are valuable tools in a wide range of human health areas including circadian medicine. Valid, low-burden, multivariate molecular approaches to assess circadian phase at scale in people living and working in the real world hold promise for translating basic circadian knowledge to practical applications. However, standards for the development and evaluation of these circadian biomarkers have not yet been established, even though several publications report such biomarkers and claim that the methods are universal. Here, we present a basic exploration of some of the determinants and confounds of blood-based biomarker development for suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) phase by reanalysing publicly available data sets. We compare performance of biomarkers based on three feature-selection methods: Partial Least Squares Regression, ZeitZeiger, and Elastic Net, as well as performance of a standard set of clock genes. We explore the effects of training sample size and the impact of the experimental protocols from which training samples are drawn and on which performance is tested. Approaches based on small sample sizes used for training are prone to poor performance due to overfitting. Performance to some extent depends on the feature-selection method, but at least as much on the experimental conditions from which the biomarker training samples were drawn. Performance of biomarkers developed under baseline conditions does not necessarily translate to protocols that mimic real-world scenarios such as shiftwork in which sleep may be restricted or desynchronized from the endogenous circadian SCN phase. The molecular features selected by the various approaches to develop biomarkers for the SCN phase show very little overlap although the processes associated with these features have common themes with response to steroid hormones, that is, cortisol being the most prominent. Overall, the findings indicate that establishment of circadian biomarkers should be guided by established biomarker-development concepts and foundational principles of human circadian biology.
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.