Biomarker Development, Methodological Challenges




Biomarkers, Surrogate Outcomes, Prentice Criteria, Prognostic Biomarkers, Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value, Validity


Biomarker development is a common endeavor in medical research.  The purpose is to find indicators of disease occurrence or prognostic markers for response.   The process of development of biomarkers often starts with showing mean differences between responders and non-responders  or those with a disease or condition versus those without.  However, these statistically significant mean differences, while necessary are not sufficient to validate a biomarker.  Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value are at least as important and the relative increase in performance using the biomarker over the usual clinical variables should be demonstrated.  This paper discusses the various assessments in the context of use for the biomarker,  the need for characteristics in addition to mean differences and the importance of independent validation of putative biomarkers.  Lastly, it is hoped that the process and thoroughness be considered with recognition that the task is at best a difficult task.


Metrics Loading ...


Download data is not yet available.


Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. 2001. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 69(3):89–95.

Steve Olson, Sally Robinson, and Robert Giffin, Rapporteurs; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Institute of Medicine: Accelerating the Development of Biomarkers for Drug Safety: Workshop Summary ISBN 978-0-309-13124:

Wolfe GI, Kaminski HJ, Aban IB, Minisman G, Kuo HC, Marx A, Ströbel P, Mazia C, Oger J, Cea JG, Heckmann JM, Evoli A, Nix W, Ciafaloni E, Antonini G, Witoonpanich R, King JO, Beydoun SR, Chalk CH, Barboi AC, Amato AA, Shaibani AI, Katirji B, Lecky BR, Buckley C, Vincent A, Dias-Tosta E, Yoshikawa H, Waddington-Cruz M, Pulley MT, Rivner MH, Kostera-Pruszczyk A, Pascuzzi RM, Jackson CE, Garcia Ramos GS, Verschuuren JJ, Massey JM, Kissel JT, Werneck LC, Benatar M, Barohn RJ, Tandan R, Mozaffar T, Conwit R, Odenkirchen J, Sonett JR, Jaretzki A 3rd, Newsom-Davis J, Cutter GR; MGTX Study Group. Randomized Trial of Thymectomy in Myasthenia Gravis. N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):511-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602489. PubMed PMID: 27509100.

Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Statistical methods for assessment of added usefulness ofnew biomarkers. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010; 48(12):1703–1711. [PubMed: 20716010]

Hlatky MA, Greenland P, Arnett DK, Ballantyne CM, Criqui MH, Elkind MSV, Go AS, Harrell FE,Hong Y, Howard BV, Howard VJ, Hsue PY, Kramer CM, McConnell JP, Normand SL, O'Donnell CJ, Smith SC, Wilson PWF. on behalf of the American Heart Association Expert Panel on Subclinical Atherosclerotic Diseases and Emerging Risk Factors and the Stroke Council. Criteria for Evaluation of Novel Markers of Cardiovascular Risk. Circulation. 2009; 119(17):2408–2416.

Pencina MJ, D' Agostino RB, D' Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Statistics in Medicine. 2008; 27(2):157–172. [PubMed: 17569110]

Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):431-40. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080407. PMID: 2727467.

Bent B, Wang K, Grzesiak E, Jiang C, Qi Y, Jiang Y, Cho P, Zingler K,Ogbeide FI, Zhao A, Runge R, Sim I, and Dunn J. The digital biomarker discovery pipeline: An open-source software platform for the development of digital biomarkers using mHealth and wearables data. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 5: e19, 1–8. doi: 10.1017/cts.2020.511






MGFA International Conference Proceedings

How to Cite

Cutter, G. (2023). Biomarker Development, Methodological Challenges. RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal, 4(3).