ArticleBiometrics2026
Two-phase designs for cost-effective evaluation of cancer screening tests.
Article in Biometrics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Screening tests are crucial for detecting diseases at preclinical stages when timely intervention can prevent progression to more severe conditions. Advances in technology have facilitated developing screening tests based on novel markers, but evaluating their performance using biospecimens from large cohorts remains logistically complex and financially demanding. Two-phase designs offer a cost-effective solution by allowing inference when expensive marker measurements are collected on only a carefully selected subsample. While traditional two-phase designs have primarily targeted estimation of marker-outcome associations, they can effectively be extended to evaluate the clinical performance of a test, including estimation of positive predictive value (the risk in test positives) and complementary negative predictive value (the risk in test negatives). We propose a novel two-phase design for efficiently evaluating the risk-stratification utility of screening tests in distinguishing between high- and low-risk individuals for both current and future disease. Designed for use with biospecimens collected from screening studies, our methodology accommodates cohorts that include both pre-existing cases at an initial screening visit and new cases identified during follow-up. We demonstrate the efficiency gains of our proposed design compared to other subsampling schemes through simulation and illustrate its application in a motivating study evaluating the p16/ki-67 dual-stain test for managing human papillomavirus-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Data and stored biospecimen samples from Kaiser Permanente Northern California are used in this analysis.
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.