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":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","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.
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
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
