ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Variational biomarker pooling with calibration for time-to-event outcomes across multiple clinical studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundBiomarkers are widely used in oncology research to study disease progression and predict survival outcomes. Pooling biomarker data across studies can improve precision, but pooled analyses are often affected by assay heterogeneity. Many studies use calibration designs because re-assaying all biospecimens on a reference platform is impractical. In pooled analyses, calibration can be incomplete when some studies have no reference measurements. This setting can be viewed as covariate measurement error in time-to-event models. Most existing methods were developed for single-cohort designs with validation or replicate measurements, and they do not directly accommodate study-specific calibration with incomplete reference data in pooled survival analyses.
methodsIn this paper, we propose Variational Inference-Based Biomarker Pooling (VIBP) for censored survival data. VIBP treats the target biomarker as latent and jointly models study-specific calibration and the survival outcome using parametric survival models. Variational inference provides scalable estimation, and uncertainty is quantified using bootstrap.
resultsThrough extensive simulation studies for exponential and Weibull survival data, we find that VIBP consistently provides estimates with lower bias, smaller mean squared error, and near-nominal 95% coverage across a wide range of effect sizes and censoring rates. We further apply VIBP to a real-world dataset to evaluate the association between DJ-1 protein levels and overall survival in lung squamous cell carcinoma. The results highlight the ability of VIBP to recover meaningful survival associations under sparse and heterogeneous calibration information.
conclusionsThe proposed method provides accurate and robust estimation in the presence of inter-study variability and partially observed reference measurements, and it remains applicable even when some studies have no reference data.
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.