Resource Overlap and Reporting of Independence in Public Prostate Cancer Research
- 1Department of Urology and Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Abstract
ImportancePublic prostate cancer data may appear under different repository identifiers or releases while representing overlapping patients, specimens, or sample records. The implications for reported analytic independence require assessment at both resource and publication levels.
ObjectiveTo characterize supported nonindependence among selected public prostate cancer resources and assess reported overlap control in publications using related resources.
DesignCross-sectional methodological audit. Resource records were reconciled through September 2, 2026; recovery of retained sources and adjudication continued through September 8, 2026. Language-model extraction and targeted original- source checks informed deterministic classification. The authors manually verified all positive findings, including supplementary materials, in September 2026.
SettingPublic prostate cancer repositories and Europe PMC and PubMed retrieval, with a publication cutoff of August 15, 2026.
ParticipantsA nonrepresentative frame of 189 repository study records and 108 publication/version records contributing 230 publication-resource-pair records.
ExposuresAnalytic use of both endpoints of a confirmed resource relation in the same linked claim.
Main Outcomes and MeasuresSupported identity levels and resolvable patient-identifier counts; reported overlap control when linked analyses required independent records. Unresolved evidence was retained separately. Published results were not reanalyzed.
ResultsThe audit identified 101 supported resource pairs: 97 with direct patient, specimen, or sample-record identity, 1 with component containment, and 3 with study/source nonindependence. Among 108 publication/version records, 8 (6 journal articles and 2 preprint versions) used related resources in analyses requiring independence without reporting applicable overlap controls. Another 3 reported applicable controls, 16 retained reporting gaps, and 81 fell outside the qualifying use or relation criteria. One of the 8 had 45 shared sample identifiers in two validation sheets, corroborating sample-record reuse but not donor identity. No global independent-patient total or prevalence estimate was established.
Conclusions and RelevanceResource nonindependence coexisted with absent claim-specific control reporting, with direct sample-record corroboration in one publication. The findings support provenance-aware use and explicit reporting, without establishing effects on published results.
Related
- Toxicity reporting that travels: a resource-adaptive framework for pediatric solid tumors
- Thirty-day clinical outcomes, early recovery, and healthcare resource use after planned ambulatory vs. conventional inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a propensity-score overlap-weighted retrospective cohort study
- A Cross-Sectional Study on the Prevalence of Asthma-Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Overlap in Patients Attending the Pulmonology Outpatient Department at Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chittoor, India
- Comparative effectiveness of five treatment strategies for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma in resource-limited settings: a multinomial overlap-weighted real-world cohort study
- Effect Estimates, Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and P-values: A Framework for Reporting and Interpreting Biomedical Research
BibTeX
@misc{yue2026resource,
title = {{Resource Overlap and Reporting of Independence in Public Prostate Cancer Research}},
author = {W. Yue and A. K. Tewari and B. J. Padanilam},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.10.26362786},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.10.26362786v1},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Resource Overlap and Reporting of Independence in Public Prostate Cancer Research
AU - W. Yue
AU - A. K. Tewari
AU - B. J. Padanilam
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/10
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.10.26362786
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.10.26362786v1
AB - ImportancePublic prostate cancer data may appear under different repository identifiers or releases while representing overlapping patients, specimens, or sample records. The implications for reported analytic independence require assessment at both resource and publication levels. ObjectiveTo characterize supported nonindependence among selected public prostate cancer resources and assess reported overlap control in publications using related resources. DesignCross-sectional methodological audit. Resource records were reconciled through September 2, 2026; recovery of retained sources and adjudication continued through September 8, 2026. Language-model extraction and targeted original- source checks informed deterministic classification. The authors manually verified all positive findings, including supplementary materials, in September 2026. SettingPublic prostate cancer repositories and Europe PMC and PubMed retrieval, with a publication cutoff of August 15, 2026. ParticipantsA nonrepresentative frame of 189 repository study records and 108 publication/version records contributing 230 publication-resource-pair records. ExposuresAnalytic use of both endpoints of a confirmed resource relation in the same linked claim. Main Outcomes and MeasuresSupported identity levels and resolvable patient-identifier counts; reported overlap control when linked analyses required independent records. Unresolved evidence was retained separately. Published results were not reanalyzed. ResultsThe audit identified 101 supported resource pairs: 97 with direct patient, specimen, or sample-record identity, 1 with component containment, and 3 with study/source nonindependence. Among 108 publication/version records, 8 (6 journal articles and 2 preprint versions) used related resources in analyses requiring independence without reporting applicable overlap controls. Another 3 reported applicable controls, 16 retained reporting gaps, and 81 fell outside the qualifying use or relation criteria. One of the 8 had 45 shared sample identifiers in two validation sheets, corroborating sample-record reuse but not donor identity. No global independent-patient total or prevalence estimate was established. Conclusions and RelevanceResource nonindependence coexisted with absent claim-specific control reporting, with direct sample-record corroboration in one publication. The findings support provenance-aware use and explicit reporting, without establishing effects on published results.
ER -