ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2020
Inference on treatment effect modification by biomarker response in a three-phase sampling design.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of human leukocyte antigen with neutralizing antibody titers in a tetravalent dengue vaccine phase 2 efficacy trial in Thailand.Human immunology · 2022Trial
- Immunobridging efficacy of a tetravalent dengue vaccine against dengue and against hospitalized dengue from children/adolescents to adults in highly endemic countries.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Bridging Efficacy of a Tetravalent Dengue Vaccine from Children/Adolescents to Adults in Highly Endemic Countries Based on Neutralizing Antibody Response.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Trial
- HAI and NAI titer correlates of inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccine efficacy.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Trial
- Methods for Feature Selection in Down-Selection of Vaccine Regimens Based on Multivariate Immune Response Endpoints.Statistics in biosciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An objective in randomized clinical trials is the evaluation of "principal surrogates," which consists of analyzing how the treatment effect on a clinical endpoint varies over principal strata subgroups defined by an intermediate response outcome under both or one of the treatment assignments. The latter effect modification estimand has been termed the marginal causal effect predictiveness (mCEP) curve. This objective was addressed in two randomized placebo-controlled Phase 3 dengue vaccine trials for an antibody response biomarker whose sampling design rendered previously developed inferential methods highly inefficient due to a three-phase sampling design. In this design, the biomarker was measured in a case-cohort sample and a key baseline auxiliary strongly associated with the biomarker (the "baseline surrogate measure") was only measured in a further sub-sample. We propose a novel approach to estimation of the mCEP curve in such three-phase sampling designs that avoids the restrictive "placebo structural risk" modeling assumption common to past methods and that further improves robustness by the use of non-parametric kernel smoothing for biomarker density estimation. Additionally, we develop bootstrap-based procedures for pointwise and simultaneous confidence intervals and testing of four relevant hypotheses about the mCEP curve. We investigate the finite-sample properties of the proposed methods and compare them to those of an alternative method making the placebo structural risk assumption. Finally, we apply the novel and alternative procedures to the two dengue vaccine trial data sets.
Indexed as
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.