ArticleJournal of causal inference2015
Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation: Principal Stratification Criteria and the Prentice Definition.
Article in Journal of causal inference, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Major Adverse Dystrophinopathy Events (MADE) Score as Marker of Cumulative Morbidity and Risk for Mortality in Boys with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.Progress in pediatric cardiology · 2023Article
- Mechanistic Correlates of Protection for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Distinguishing Causation From Correlation in the Use of Correlates of Protection to Evaluate and Develop Influenza Vaccines.American journal of epidemiology · 2020Review
- Likelihood-Based Methods for Assessing Principal Surrogate Endpoints in Vaccine Trials.Statistics in biosciences · 2019Article
- Simultaneous Inference of Treatment Effect Modification by Intermediate Response Endpoint Principal Strata with Application to Vaccine Trials.The international journal of biostatistics · 2019Article
- Taking stock of the present and looking ahead: envisioning challenges in the design of future HIV prevention efficacy trials.The lancet. HIV · 2019Review
- Ongoing Vaccine and Monoclonal Antibody HIV Prevention Efficacy Trials and Considerations for Sequel Efficacy Trial Designs.Statistical communications in infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Evaluating principal surrogate markers in vaccine trials in the presence of multiphase sampling.Biometrics · 2018Article
- Can Biomarkers Advance HIV Research and Care in the Antiretroviral Therapy Era?The Journal of infectious diseases · 2018Review
- Predicting Overall Vaccine Efficacy in a New Setting by Re-Calibrating Baseline Covariate and Intermediate Response Endpoint Effect Modifiers of Type-Specific Vaccine Efficacy.Epidemiologic methods · 2016Article
- Modeling HIV vaccine trials of the future.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A common problem of interest within a randomized clinical trial is the evaluation of an inexpensive response endpoint as a valid surrogate endpoint for a clinical endpoint, where a chief purpose of a valid surrogate is to provide a way to make correct inferences on clinical treatment effects in future studies without needing to collect the clinical endpoint data. Within the principal stratification framework for addressing this problem based on data from a single randomized clinical efficacy trial, a variety of definitions and criteria for a good surrogate endpoint have been proposed, all based on or closely related to the "principal effects" or "causal effect predictiveness (CEP)" surface. We discuss CEP-based criteria for a useful surrogate endpoint, including (1) the meaning and relative importance of proposed criteria including average causal necessity (ACN), average causal sufficiency (ACS), and large clinical effect modification; (2) the relationship between these criteria and the Prentice definition of a valid surrogate endpoint; and (3) the relationship between these criteria and the consistency criterion (i.e., assurance against the "surrogate paradox"). This includes the result that ACN plus a strong version of ACS generally do not imply the Prentice definition nor the consistency criterion, but they do have these implications in special cases. Moreover, the converse does not hold except in a special case with a binary candidate surrogate. The results highlight that assumptions about the treatment effect on the clinical endpoint before the candidate surrogate is measured are influential for the ability to draw conclusions about the Prentice definition or consistency. In addition, we emphasize that in some scenarios that occur commonly in practice, the principal strata sub-populations for inference are identifiable from the observable data, in which cases the principal stratification framework has relatively high utility for the purpose of effect modification analysis, and is closely connected to the treatment marker selection problem. The results are illustrated with application to a vaccine efficacy trial, where ACN and ACS for an antibody marker are found to be consistent with the data and hence support the Prentice definition and consistency.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.