ArticleAmerican journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council2026
A Bayesian Modeling Approach to Optimize Longitudinal Biomarker Sampling Schedules Using Hormonal Data.
Article in American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council, 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
objectivesOptimal schedules for longitudinal biomarker sampling are specific to the individual biomarkers and study aims. We present a Bayesian modeling approach for evaluating intraindividual, interindividual, and population-level biomarker variation in order to optimize precision in parameter estimates and inform biomarker sampling decisions.
methodsWe apply Bayesian linear and nonlinear mixed-effects models to estimate individual- and population-level parameters of longitudinal hormone data from 35 pubertal girls. Starting with first morning void measures of urinary testosterone and C-peptide collected across a two-year timespan, we downsample these longitudinal data systematically to evaluate precision in parameter estimates from nine sampling frequencies: annual, biannual (6-month), and quarterly (3-month) intervals with one, two, and three repeated samples per interval.
resultsStandard errors and credible intervals of individual- and population-level parameter estimates as well as the overall residual errors from our applied models indicate that specific dimensions of sampling frequency have distinct impacts on model parameters across different levels. Collectively, metrics of model fit, precision, and uncertainty indicate that more data are not always better, as we do not find parameter estimates to improve directly with increasing total sample size across models. Notably, we identify optimal sampling thresholds beyond which individual parameter estimates become less precise with additional measures.
conclusionsThe data, code, and results from these analyses provide tools for Bayesian model building, evaluation, and sampling decisions. Specific biomarker features impact precision in distinct ways, and our hormone modeling example showcases sampling analysis methods that are applicable to a broad range of biological 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.