Extending the scope of pooled analyses of individual patient biomarker data from heterogeneous laboratory platforms and cohorts using merging algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Successful merging of individual pregnancy data across heterogeneous platforms. • Global standardized PlGF measure developed for use, irrespective of local platform. • Best reference curve for PlGF measurements created for normal pregnancy. • Successful use of reference curve for identification of adverse outcomes. • Method can be extended to any biomarkers from heterogeneous platforms in any field. A common challenge in medicine, exemplified in the analysis of biomarker data, is that large studies are needed for sufficient statistical power. Often, this may only be achievable by aggregating multiple cohorts. However, different studies may use disparate platforms for laboratory analysis, which can hinder merging. Using circulating placental growth factor (PlGF), a potential biomarker for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) such as preeclampsia, as an example, we investigated how such issues can be overcome by inter-platform standardization and merging algorithms. We studied 16,462 pregnancies from 22 study cohorts. PlGF measurements (gestational age ⩾20 weeks) analyzed on one of four platforms: R&D® Systems, Alere®Triage, Roche®Elecsys or Abbott®Architect, were available for 13,429 women. Two merging algorithms, using Z-Score and Multiple of Median transformations, were applied. Best reference curves (BRC), based on merged, transformed PlGF measurements in uncomplicated pregnancy across six gestational age groups, were estimated. Identification of HDP by these PlGF-BRCs was compared to that of platform-specific curves. We demonstrate the feasibility of merging PlGF concentrations from different analytical platforms. Overall BRC identification of HDP performed at least as well as platform-specific curves. Our method can be extended to any set of biomarkers obtained from different laboratory platforms in any field. Merged biomarker data from multiple studies will improve statistical power and enlarge our understanding of the pathophysiology and management of medical syndromes.
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 | 0.137 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".