ArticleJournal of applied statistics2026
Bayesian biomarker effect estimate for combining data from multiple biomarker studies.
Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2026. 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.
- Variational biomarker pooling with calibration for time-to-event outcomes across multiple clinical studies.BMC medical research methodology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pooling data from multiple studies enhances statistical power and precision for quantifying biomarker-disease associations. However, inter-study variability in biomarker measurements exists, requiring calibration to a reference assay to standardize biomarker data across contributing studies before pooling. In this study, we develop a novel Bayesian Biomarker Pooling (BBP) method to aggregate biomarker data from multiple study sources, which considers the reference measurements of biospecimens that have not been re-assayed as unobservable latent variables. We establish a two-level model of studies and biospecimens to delineate the relationships among reference measurements, local measurements, and outcomes. Furthermore, we compare the proposed BBP method with several prevalent methodologies: the internalized method, the full calibration method, the two-stage method, the naïve method, and the x-only method. Our results demonstrate that the BBP method outperforms the other methods. This advantage is particularly pronounced in scenarios involving high noise and strong effects. As an illustrative example, we apply these methods in a pooling analysis to evaluate the association between Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) gene expression levels and breast cancer risk. The full package is available online at https://github.com/luyiyun/bayesian_biomark_pooling.
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.