Evidence mapPaperPMID 42598529Full record

ReviewJournal of mood and anxiety disorders2026

Best practices for using biological data in psychological research.

Sage E Hawn, Sinead M Sinnott, Alicia K Smith, Kyle Bourassa, Leslie Brick, Sian Hemmings, Soraya Seedat, Arash Javanbakht, Lauren Smith, Antonia V Seligowski and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Sage E HawnOld Dominion University, Department of Psychology, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Sinead M SinnottMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Alicia K SmithEmory University, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kyle BourassaVA Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.
Leslie BrickCenter on Alcohol, Substance use, And Addictions (CASAA), University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Mexico.
Sian HemmingsDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Soraya SeedatDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Arash JavanbakhtStress, Trauma, and Anxiety Research Clinic, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Lauren SmithOld Dominion University, Department of Psychology, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Antonia V SeligowskiMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Nathan A KimbrelVA Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.
Divya MehtaCentre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia.
Hossein AbbasiCentre for Genomics and Personalised Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia.
Erika WolfNational Center for PTSD at VA Boston Healthcare System, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Best practicesBiological data collectionBiomarkersReplicationStandardization

Identifiers

PMID42598529
PMCPMC13471322

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.