Evidence mapPaperPMID 34873011Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Biomarker discovery studies for patient stratification using machine learning analysis of omics data: a scoping review.

Enrico Glaab, Armin Rauschenberger, Rita Banzi, Chiara Gerardi, Paula Garcia, Jacques Demotes

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Artificial intelligence for biomarker discovery in Alzheimer's disease and dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Enrico GlaabLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg enrico.glaab@uni.lu.ORCID 0000-0003-3977-7469
Armin RauschenbergerLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0001-6498-4801
Rita BanziCenter for Health Regulatory Policies, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2211-3300
Chiara GerardiCenter for Health Regulatory Policies, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2459-4769
Paula GarciaEuropean Clinical Research Infrastructure Network, ECRIN, Paris, France.
Jacques DemotesEuropean Clinical Research Infrastructure Network, ECRIN, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0807-0746

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review biomarker discovery studies using omics data for patient stratification which led to clinically validated FDA-cleared tests or laboratory developed tests, in order to identify common characteristics and derive recommendations for future biomarker projects.

designScoping review.

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science to obtain a comprehensive list of articles from the biomedical literature published between January 2000 and July 2021, describing clinically validated biomarker signatures for patient stratification, derived using statistical learning approaches. All documents were screened to retain only peer-reviewed research articles, review articles or opinion articles, covering supervised and unsupervised machine learning applications for omics-based patient stratification. Two reviewers independently confirmed the eligibility. Disagreements were solved by consensus. We focused the final analysis on omics-based biomarkers which achieved the highest level of validation, that is, clinical approval of the developed molecular signature as a laboratory developed test or FDA approved tests.

resultsOverall, 352 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The analysis of validated biomarker signatures identified multiple common methodological and practical features that may explain the successful test development and guide future biomarker projects. These include study design choices to ensure sufficient statistical power for model building and external testing, suitable combinations of non-targeted and targeted measurement technologies, the integration of prior biological knowledge, strict filtering and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the adequacy of statistical and machine learning methods for discovery and validation.

conclusionsWhile most clinically validated biomarker models derived from omics data have been developed for personalised oncology, first applications for non-cancer diseases show the potential of multivariate omics biomarker design for other complex disorders. Distinctive characteristics of prior success stories, such as early filtering and robust discovery approaches, continuous improvements in assay design and experimental measurement technology, and rigorous multicohort validation approaches, enable the derivation of specific recommendations for future studies.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMachine LearningBiomarkersHumansResearch DesignBiomarkersbiomarkersmachine learningomicsscoping reviewstratification

Identifiers

PMID34873011
PMCPMC8650485

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.