A Measure of the Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by a Surrogate Marker
dc.contributor.author | Wang, Yue | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Taylor, Jeremy M. G. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-01T15:04:20Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-04-01T15:04:20Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2002-12 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Wang, Yue; Taylor, Jeremy M. G. (2002). "A Measure of the Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by a Surrogate Marker." Biometrics 58(4): 803-812. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/65535> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0006-341X | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1541-0420 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/65535 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12495134&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Randomized clinical trials with rare primary endpoints or long duration times are costly. Because of this, there has been increasing interest in replacing the true endpoint with an earlier measured marker. However, surrogate markers must be appropriately validated. A quantitative measure for the proportion of treatment effect explained by the marker in a specific trial is a useful concept. Freedman, Graubard, and Schatzkin (1992, Statistics in Medicine 11, 167–178) suggested such a measure of surrogacy by the ratio of regression coefficients for the treatment indicator from two separate models with or without adjusting for the surrogate marker. However, it has been shown that this measure is very variable and there is no guarantee that the two models both fit. In this article, we propose alternative measures of the proportion explained that adapts an idea in Tsiatis, DeGruttola, and Wulfsohn (1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 , 27–37). The new measures require fewer assumptions in estimation and allow more flexibility in modeling. The estimates of these different measures are compared using data from an ophthalmology clinical trial and a series of simulation studies. The results suggest that the new measures are less variable. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1064317 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3110 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd | en_US |
dc.rights | The International Biometric Society, 2002 | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Surrogate Marker | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Validation | en_US |
dc.title | A Measure of the Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by a Surrogate Marker | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Mathematics | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan,1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109–2029, U.S.A. | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 12495134 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65535/1/j.0006-341X.2002.00803.x.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00803.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Biometrics | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Buyse, M. and Molenberghs, G. ( 1998 ). Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54, 1014 – 1029. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., and Geys, H. ( 2000 ). Validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analysis of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1, 49 – 68. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bycott, P. W. and Taylor, J. M. G. ( 1998 ). An evaluation of a measure of the proportion of the treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Controlled Clinical Trials 19, 555 – 568. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Daniels, M. J. and Hughes, M. D. ( 1997 ). Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine 16, 1965 – 1982. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | DeGruttola, V., Fleming, T. R., Lin, D. Y., and Coombs, R. ( 1996 ). Validating surrogate markers: Are we being naive? Journal of Infectious Disease 175, 237 – 246. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. ( 1986 ). Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science 1, 54 – 77. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ellenberg, S. S. and Hamilton, J. M. ( 1989 ). Surrogate end-points in clinical trials: Cancer. Statistics in Medicine 8, 405 – 413. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fleming, T. R. ( 1992 ). Evaluating therapeutic interventions: Some issues and experiences. Statistical Science 7, 428 – 456. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fleming, T. R. and DeMets, D. L. ( 1996 ). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 125, 605 – 613. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Freedman, L. S. ( 2001 ). Confidence intervals and statistical power of the “validation” ratio for surrogate or intermediate endpoints. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 96, 143 – 153. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I., and Schatzkiii, A. ( 1992 ). Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. Statistics in Medicine 11, 167 – 178. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hwang, G. J. T. ( 1995 ). Fieller's problems and resampling techniques. Statistica Sinica 5, 161 – 171. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lagakos, S. W. and Hoth, D. F. ( 1992 ). Surrogate markers in AIDS: Where are we? Where are we going? Annals of Internal Medicine 116, 599 – 601. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lin, D. Y., Fleming, T. R., and DeGruttola, V. ( 1997 ). Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 16, 1515 – 1527. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Prentice, R. L. ( 1989 ). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 8, 431 – 440. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Schatzkin, A., Freedman, L. S., Schiffman, M. H., and Dawsey, S. M. ( 1990 ). Validation of intermediate end points in cancer research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 82, 1746 – 1752. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tsiatis, A. A., DeGruttola, V., and Wulfsohn, M. S. ( 1995 ). Modeling the relationship of survival to longitudinal data measured with error: Applications to survival and CD4 counts in patients with AIDs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90, 27 – 37. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.