Heterogeneity and Power in Clinical Biomarker Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many recent studies have suggested the possibility that a variety of different biomarkers may be associated with treatment outcome. However, it is also apparent that some of these biomarkers are heterogeneously distributed within a tumor. Due to this heterogeneous distribution of the biomarker, the association sought may appear weak or nonexistent. Thus, there is a wide range of conclusions in the literature on the association between a biomarker and an outcome. RESULTS: This article presents how to quantify the heterogeneity and how it influences the observed effect size and the ability to detect it (power of the study). It can be shown that the estimated effect size and the power of the study are diminished when the biomarker is measured with error. The estimated effect of the association with outcome of the average of several replicates per patient is closer to the true effect size when the number of replicates increases. CONCLUSION: The first step in designing a study of association between a biomarker and outcome is to conduct a pilot study in which several measurements per patient are taken. Based on these data, the heterogeneity of the marker within and between individuals can be estimated and used in the process of designing an appropriate study of the association between the biomarker and outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.495 | 0.776 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".