Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26722639›Full record

ArticleJournal of causal inference2015

Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation: Principal Stratification Criteria and the Prentice Definition.

Peter B Gilbert, Erin E Gabriel, Ying Huang, Ivan S F Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Modeling HIV vaccine trials of the future.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter B GilbertVaccine Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, 98109, U.S.A. ; Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 98105, U.S.A.
Erin E GabrielBiostatistics Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817, U.S.A.
Ying HuangVaccine Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, 98109, U.S.A. ; Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 98105, U.S.A.
Ivan S F ChanMerck & Co., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, 08889, U.S.A.

Funding

SDMC: HIV Vaccine Trials NetworkUM1AI068635 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Peter B. Gilbert, Yunda Huang · 2011 to 2026
$385.9M
Statistical Methods in HIV Vaccine Efficacy TrialsR37AI054165 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Peter B. Gilbert · 2010 to 2026
$6.7M
Statistical Methods for Selection and Evaluation of BiomarkersR01GM106177 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI HUANG, YING · 2013 to 2018
$1.6M
FHCRC High-Performance Computing ClusterS10OD020069 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI KOOPERBERG, CHARLES L · 2015 to 2015
$600k
NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI054165NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068635NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM106177NIH HHS S10 OD020069
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID26722639
PMCPMC4692254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.