Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30247535›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2020

Predictive cluster level surrogacy in the presence of interference.

Erin E Gabriel, Dean A Follmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Erin E GabrielDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dean A FollmannBiostatistics Research Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surrogate evaluation is a difficult problem that is made more so by the presence of interference. Our proposed procedure can allow for relatively easy evaluation of surrogates for indirect or spill-over clinical effects at the cluster level. Our definition of surrogacy is based on the causal-association paradigm (Joffe and Greene, 2009. Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics65, 530-538), under which surrogates are evaluated by the strength of the association between a causal treatment effect on the clinical outcome and a causal treatment effect on the candidate surrogate. Hudgens and Halloran (2008, Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association103, 832-842) introduced estimators that can be used for many of the marginal causal estimands of interest in the presence of interference. We extend these to consider surrogates for not just direct effects, but indirect and total effects at the cluster level. We suggest existing estimators that can be used to evaluate biomarkers under our proposed definition of surrogacy. In our motivating setting of a transmission blocking malaria vaccine, there is expected to be no direct protection to those vaccinated and predictive surrogates are urgently needed. We use a set of simulated data examples based on the proposed Phase IIb/III trial design of transmission blocking malaria vaccine to demonstrate how our definition, proposed criteria and procedure can be used to identify biomarkers as predictive cluster level surrogates in the presence of interference on the clinical outcome.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBiostatisticsCausalityClinical Trials as TopicHumansMalariaMalaria VaccinesOutcome Assessment, Health CareBiomarkersMalaria VaccinesCausal inferenceCluster level surrogateCluster randomized trialsInterferenceTransmission blocking vaccine

Identifiers

PMID30247535
PMCPMC7868061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.