Biological markers in reproductive epidemiology: prospects and precautions

We begin by defining "biological markers" for the purposes of the present review, distinguishing markers from other types of information, such as subject reports or conventional clinical data. We find the distinctions to be hazy. Next, from the standpoint of epidemiologists, we set out circumstances in which exposure markers might be needed, suggesting requirements for useful markers. We give two instances (lead, PCB), drawn from studies of female reproduction, where the use of exposure markers is compared to environmental or anamnestic data. Effect markers are considered in turn. It is argued that their usefulness (if they are to be more informative than exposure markers) depends on their sensitivity and specificity in relation to the disease outcome. Also, their timeliness, and the use that can be made of the gain in time, for individuals and populations is discussed. In this context, we consider markers of events before and around fertilization; more specifically, we consider those events that precede the clinical marker of the first missed period. In returning to the potential uses of biological markers in discovering or interpreting female reproductive disorders that might be owed to environmental causes, we compare markers of the pre- and peri-implantation phases with markers of the postimplantation phase, drawing on experience with studies of chromosome anomaly in spontaneous abortion. Finally, we suggest other sensitive reproductive processes for which biological markers might usefully be developed.