Validation of new, circulating biomarkers for gliomas.

IF 2.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Diagnosis Pub Date : 2025-03-26 DOI:10.1515/dx-2025-0012

Miyo K Chatanaka, Lisa M Avery, Eleftherios P Diamandis

{"title":"Validation of new, circulating biomarkers for gliomas.","authors":"Miyo K Chatanaka, Lisa M Avery, Eleftherios P Diamandis","doi":"10.1515/dx-2025-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Biomarkers are useful clinical tools but only a handful of them are used routinely for patient care. Despite intense efforts to discover new, clinically useful biomarkers, very few new circulating biomarkers were implemented in clinical practice in the last 40 years. This is mainly due to rather poor clinical performance. Here, our goal was to validate the performance of a group of newly discovered circulating biomarkers for glioma by comparing our data with data from a paper recently published in Science Advances.Methods: We analyzed our own sets of clinical samples (gliomas (n=30), meningiomas (n=20)) and a different analytical assay (Proximity Extension Assay, OLINK Proteomics) to compare the results of Shen and colleagues.Results: Despite the sophistication of the utilized discovery method by the original investigators, we found that the newly proposed biomarkers for glioma (the best one presumably being SERPINA6) did not perform as originally claimed.Conclusions: Scientific irreproducibility has been extensively discussed in the literature. A large proportion of newly discovered candidate biomarkers likely represent \"false discovery\" and significantly contribute to the propagation of irreproducible results between investigators. One of the best ways to assess the value of any new biomarker is by independent and extensive validation. Based on our previous classification of irreproducible results, we believe that this new work likely represents another example of biomarker false discovery.","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2025-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Biomarkers are useful clinical tools but only a handful of them are used routinely for patient care. Despite intense efforts to discover new, clinically useful biomarkers, very few new circulating biomarkers were implemented in clinical practice in the last 40 years. This is mainly due to rather poor clinical performance. Here, our goal was to validate the performance of a group of newly discovered circulating biomarkers for glioma by comparing our data with data from a paper recently published in Science Advances.

Methods: We analyzed our own sets of clinical samples (gliomas (n=30), meningiomas (n=20)) and a different analytical assay (Proximity Extension Assay, OLINK Proteomics) to compare the results of Shen and colleagues.

Results: Despite the sophistication of the utilized discovery method by the original investigators, we found that the newly proposed biomarkers for glioma (the best one presumably being SERPINA6) did not perform as originally claimed.

Conclusions: Scientific irreproducibility has been extensively discussed in the literature. A large proportion of newly discovered candidate biomarkers likely represent "false discovery" and significantly contribute to the propagation of irreproducible results between investigators. One of the best ways to assess the value of any new biomarker is by independent and extensive validation. Based on our previous classification of irreproducible results, we believe that this new work likely represents another example of biomarker false discovery.

查看原文本刊更多论文

胶质瘤新的循环生物标志物的验证。

目的：生物标志物是有用的临床工具，但只有少数是常规用于病人护理。尽管在过去的40年里，人们努力发现新的、临床有用的生物标志物，但很少有新的循环生物标志物在临床实践中得到应用。这主要是由于临床表现不佳。在这里，我们的目标是通过将我们的数据与最近发表在《科学进展》上的一篇论文的数据进行比较，验证一组新发现的神经胶质瘤循环生物标志物的性能。方法：我们分析了我们自己的临床样本（胶质瘤（n=30），脑膜瘤（n=20））和不同的分析方法（邻近延伸法，OLINK蛋白质组学）来比较沈和同事的结果。结果：尽管最初的研究者使用了复杂的发现方法，但我们发现新提出的胶质瘤生物标志物（最好的可能是SERPINA6）并没有像最初声称的那样发挥作用。结论：科学的不可重复性在文献中被广泛讨论。很大一部分新发现的候选生物标志物可能代表“错误发现”，并且在研究人员之间传播不可重复的结果。评估任何新生物标志物价值的最佳方法之一是通过独立和广泛的验证。基于我们之前对不可重复结果的分类，我们认为这项新工作可能代表了生物标志物错误发现的另一个例子。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

5.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.　 Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error