ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
From input to impact: embedding PPI in computational ovarian cancer research.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as a valuable component of health research, yet there are no published examples of its implementation in computational biology. In this study, we detail how we embedded the perspectives of those affected by ovarian cancer into a biomarker discovery project. Throughout this process, PPI partners gave practical guidance on prioritizing research areas, developing study materials and contributing as co-authors on both patient information leaflets and this publication. To ensure this involvement was meaningful and inclusive, we prioritized three key strategies. Firstly, the research team placed significant emphasis on flexibility in order to facilitate accessible participation. We offered online and in-person formats, utilised explanatory videos, scheduled around PPI team availability, and held 1-to-1 “catch-up” sessions for new members. This emphasis on flexibility enabled PPI partners to contribute to the project on their own terms and helped to build trust with the research team. Secondly, we came up with ways to value PPI contributions beyond monetary reimbursement. PPI partners were compensated for their time and expenses; however, we also supported personal learning goals through “journal club” videos and interactive sessions with other researchers. These methods of appreciation helped to promote the individual goals of each contributor and ensure that the collaboration was mutually beneficial for both researchers and PPI partners. Finally, and importantly, we acted on the feedback received from our PPI partners and reported what changes we had made to our project. Input from PPI partners informed the selection of liquid biopsy types, widened the breath of the project to include multiple subtypes of ovarian cancer and influenced the development of patient information leaflets. When combined, these three tactics produced an inclusive PPI process that improved the relevance, applicability, and acceptability of the biomarker discovery study. While these principles are broadly applicable across PPI initiatives in general, we provide reflections on their importance in addressing the challenges of PPI in a computational context. In addition to offering a guide for researchers looking to develop more responsive and cooperative PPI research practices, our experience demonstrates the potential for impactful patient partnership in computational biology.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.