ArticleBiometrics2022
Robust methods to correct for measurement error when evaluating a surrogate marker.
Article in Biometrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surrogate Marker Evaluation: A Tutorial Using R.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Concordance Between Point-of-Care Urine Ethyl Glucuronide Alcohol Tests and Self-Reported Alcohol Use in Persons with HIV in Uganda.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
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
The identification of valid surrogate markers of disease or disease progression has the potential to decrease the length and costs of future studies. Most available methods that assess the value of a surrogate marker ignore the fact that surrogates are often measured with error. Failing to adjust for measurement error can erroneously identify a useful surrogate marker as not useful or vice versa. We investigate and propose robust methods to correct for the effect of measurement error when evaluating a surrogate marker using multiple estimators developed for parametric and nonparametric estimates of the proportion of treatment effect explained by the surrogate marker. In addition, we quantify the attenuation bias induced by measurement error and develop inference procedures to allow for variance and confidence interval estimation. Through a simulation study, we show that our proposed estimators correct for measurement error in the surrogate marker and that our inference procedures perform well in finite samples. We illustrate these methods by examining a potential surrogate marker that is measured with error, hemoglobin A1c, using data from the Diabetes Prevention Program clinical trial.
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.