CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 405Osteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHip disorders and treatments

Classification of osteoarthritis biomarkers: a proposed approach

Open access
Bauer, D.C., Hunter, D.J., Abramson, S.B., Attur, M., Corr, M., Felson, D., Heinegård, D., Jordan, J.M. +5 more·2006·Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
DOI 10.1016/j.joca.2006.04.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective Osteoarthritis (OA) biomarkers are needed by researchers and clinicians to assist in disease diagnosis and assessment of disease severity, risk of onset, and progression. As effective agents for OA are developed and tested in clinical studies, biomarkers that reliably mirror or predict the progression or amelioration of OA will also be needed. Methods The NIH-funded OA Biomarkers Network is a multidisciplinary group interested in the development and validation of OA biomarkers. This review summarizes our efforts to characterize and classify OA biomarkers. Results We propose the "BIPED" biomarker classification (which stands for Burden of Disease, Investigative, Prognostic, Efficacy of Intervention and Diagnostic), and offer suggestions on optimal study design and analytic methods for use in OA investigations. Conclusion The BIPED classification provides specific biomarker definitions with the goal of improving our ability to develop and analyze OA biomarkers, and to communicate these advances within a common framework.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joca.2006.04.001

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An integrated framework synthesizing circulating biomarkers, synovial fluid analysis, quantitative imaging parameters, and clinical evaluation can enable clinicians to detect disease earlier, stratify patients by disease subtypes, predict progression trajectories, and monitor therapeutic responses with greater precision.

    “By synthesizing information from circulating biomarkers, synovial fluid analysis, quantitative imaging parameters, and clinical evaluation, an integrated framework can help facilitate holistic orthopedic care and enable clinicians to detect disease earlier, stratify patients according to disease subtypes, predict progression trajectories, and monitor therapeutic responses with greater precision [9”

    From Biomarker-Guided Imaging and AI-Augmented Diagnosis of Degenerative Joint Disease (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, Deyo RA, Felson DT, Giannini EH, et al. Estimates of the pre- valence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal dis- orders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41(5):778e99.
  2. Dieppe PA, Lohmander LS. Pathogenesis and manage- ment of pain in osteoarthritis. Lancet 2005;365(9463): 965e73.
  3. Creamer P. Osteoarthritis pain and its treatment. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2000;12(5):450e5.
  4. De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Control Clin Trials 2001;22(5):485e502.
  5. Saxne T, Ma ˚nsson B, Heinega ˚rd D. Biomarkers for cartilage and bone in rheumatoid arthritis. In: Firestein GS, Panayi GS, Wollheim FA, Eds. Rheumatoid Arthritis: New Frontiers in Pathogenesis and Treatment. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006:301e13.
  6. Lohmander LS, Eyre DR. From biomarker to surrogate outcome to osteoarthritisdwhat are the challenges? J Rheumatol 2005;32(6):1142e3.
  7. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. Development of criteria for the classi- fication and reporting of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29(8):1039e49.
  8. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8(2):113e34.
  9. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA. Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Making 1984;4(2):137e50.
  10. Jung M, Christgau S, Lukoschek M, Henriksen D, Richter W. Increased urinary concentration of collagen type II C-telopeptide fragments in patients with osteo- arthritis. Pathobiology 2004;71(2):70e6.
  11. Kattan MW. Judging new markers by their ability to im- prove predictive accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(9):634e5.
  12. Clark AG, Jordan JM, Vilim V, Renner JB, Dragomir AD, Luta G, et al. Serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein re- flects osteoarthritis presence and severity: the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42(11):2356e64.
  13. Elliott AL, Kraus VB, Luta G, Stabler T, Renner JB, Woodard J, et al. Serum hyaluronan levels and radiographic knee and hip osteoarthritis in African Americans and Caucasians in the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52(1): 105e11.
  14. Garnero P, Sornay-Rendu E, Arlot M, Christiansen C, Delmas PD. Association between spine disc degener- ation and type II collagen degradation in postmeno- pausal women: the OFELY study. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50(10):3137e44.
  15. Goronzy JJ, Matteson EL, Fulbright JW, Warrington KJ, Chang-Miller A, Hunder GG, et al. Prognostic markers of radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthri- tis. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50(1):43e54.
  16. Vilim V, Olejarova M, Machacek S, Gatterova J, Kraus VB, Pavelka K. Serum levels of cartilage oligo- meric matrix protein (COMP) correlate with radiographic progression of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Carti- lage 2002;10(9):707e13.
  17. Sharif M, Kirwan JR, Elson CJ, Granell R, Clarke S. Suggestion of nonlinear or phasic progression of knee osteoarthritis based on measurements of serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein levels over five years. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50(8):2479e88.
  18. Garnero P, Peterfy C, Zaim S, Schoenharting M. Bone marrow abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging are associated with type II collagen degradation in knee osteoarthritis: a three-month longitudinal study. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52(9):2822e9.
  19. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical val- idation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 1992;11(2):167e78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, D. C., Hunter, D. J., Abramson, S. B., Attur, M., Corr, M., Felson, D., Heinegård, D., Jordan, J. M., Kepler, T. B., Lane, N. E., Saxne, T., Tyree, B., & Kraus, V. B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (US)
Corresponding author
Bauer, D.C.
ORCID
Venue
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
14
Issue
8
Pages
723-727
ISSN
1063-4584 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.joca.2006.04.001
OpenAlex
W1974511102
Cited by
405
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 22
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip disorders and treatments
Keywords
osteoarthritis, biomarkers, biomarker classification, disease burden, prognostic factors, diagnostic biomarkers, disease progression, research design, analytical methods
MeSH terms
Arthrography, Humans, Osteoarthritis, Prognosis, Rheumatology, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review