ReviewJournal of mood and anxiety disorders2026
Best practices for using biological data in psychological research.
Review in Journal of mood and anxiety disorders, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in statistical techniques for analyzing biological data have driven the need for larger sample sizes, which are ultimately made possible through team science efforts. Findings from these efforts have led to a significant shift in approaches to biological data collection over the past decade, from traditional approaches relying on single measures or assays collected by individual investigators in small lab-based studies to high-dimensional methodologies embedded within large cohorts or multi-site studies. These recent large scale consortium efforts necessitate careful consideration across the full data pipeline, from pre-data generation and sample collection to processing and statistical analysis, while addressing challenges such as cost, standardization of laboratory procedures, and harmonization across sites. Selecting an appropriate methodological approach to measure a biomarker involves complex decisions and tradeoffs to determine the most suitable biological modality (e.g., blood vs. saliva) and assay type (e.g., plasma vs. serum) for the research question and target population. These decisions must account for contextual factors such as cost, study population characteristics, storage space, and analytic capabilities, and carry important implications for data quality, feasibility, and interpretability. Standardization of data collection, storage, quality control, and analytical practices (e.g., accounting for technical confounders), is critical, especially when analyzing biological data across multiple cohorts and time points. This review synthesizes recommended best practices for standardizing collection of peripheral biomarkers (blood, saliva, and urine) in psychiatric research, which we hope will enhance data quality, facilitate cross-study comparisons, and advance individual and team biomarker research now and in the future.
Indexed as
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.