The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sources of Bias in Specimens for Research About Molecular Markers for Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Claims about the diagnostic or prognostic accuracy of markers often prove disappointing when “discrimination” found between cancers versus normals is due to bias, a systematic difference between compared groups. This article describes a framework to help simplify and organize current problems in marker research by focusing on the role of specimens as a source of bias in observational research and using that focus to address problems and improve reliability. The central idea is that the “fundamental comparison” in research about markers (ie, the comparison done to assess whether a marker discriminates) involves two distinct processes that are “connected” by specimens. If subject selection (first process) creates baseline inequality between groups being compared, then laboratory analysis of specimens (second process) may erroneously find positive results. Although both processes are important, subject selection more fundamentally influences the quality of marker research, because it can hardwire bias into all comparisons in a way that cannot be corrected by any refinement in laboratory analysis. An appreciation of the separateness of these two processes—and placing investigators with appropriate expertise in charge of each—may increase the reliability of research about cancer biomarkers.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer
Petricoin, E. F., Ardekani, A. M., Hitt, B. A., Levine, P. J., Fusaro, V. A., Steinberg, S. M., Mills, G. B., Simone, C., Fishman, D. A., Kohn, E. C., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07746-2 · Cited by 3,236
Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)
McShane, L. M., Altman, D. G., Sauerbrei, W., Taube, S. E., Gion, M., & Clark, G. M. (2005) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji237 · Cited by 2,162
Phases of Biomarker Development for Early Detection of Cancer
Pepe, M. S., Etzioni, R., Feng, Z., Potter, J. D., Thompson, M. L., Thornquist, M., Winget, M., & Yasui, Y. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.14.1054 · Cited by 1,686
Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications
Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Ntzani, E. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2003) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00013-5 · Cited by 323
Cited by
Poste, G. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/469156a · Cited by 582
Cancer biomarker discovery and validation.
Goossens, N., Nakagawa, S., Sun, X., & Hoshida, Y. (2015) · PubMed · doi:10.3978/j.issn.2218-676x.2015.06.04 · Cited by 503
Erdbrügger, U., Blijdorp, C. J., Bijnsdorp, I. V., Borràs, F. E., Burger, D., Bussolati, B., Byrd, J. B., Clayton, A., Dear, J. W., Falcón‐Pérez, J. M., et al. (2021) · Journal of Extracellular Vesicles · doi:10.1002/jev2.12093 · Cited by 404
Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions
Coppola, L., Cianflone, A., Grimaldi, A. M., Incoronato, M., Bevilacqua, P., Messina, F., Baselice, S., Soricelli, A., Mirabelli, P., & Salvatore, M. (2019) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3 · Cited by 394
Erichsen (2010) · Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.2147/clep.s9908 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Ransohoff, D. F., & Gourlay, M. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2010-02-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 698-704
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2147464891
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 17.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sources of Bias in Specimens for Research About Molecular Markers for Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2009.25.6065
- The paper
- Ransohoff, D. F., & Gourlay, M. L. (2010). Sources of Bias in Specimens for Research About Molecular Markers for Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.25.6065
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
