ArticleStatistics in biosciences2019
Likelihood-Based Methods for Assessing Principal Surrogate Endpoints in Vaccine Trials.
Article in Statistics in biosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When evaluating principal surrogate biomarkers in vaccine trials, missingness in potential outcomes requires prediction using auxiliary variables and/or augmented study design with a close-out placebo vaccination (CPV) component. The estimated likelihood approach, which separates the estimation of biomarker distribution from the maximization of the estimated likelihood, has often been adopted. Here we develop a likelihood-based approach that jointly estimates the two parts and describe the methods for selecting auxiliary variables as risk predictors and/or biomarker predictors. Through numerical studies, we observe that in a standard trial design without a CPV component, the two methods achieve similar performance in estimation of the risk model and the marker model. However, for trials augmented with a CPV component, using the likelihood-based method achieves better estimation performance compared to the estimated likelihood method. Moreover, in the presence of a large number of covariates from which to select, the ML method achieves comparable or better performance compared to the EL method in both designs. While the CPV component has not yet been implemented in existing vaccine trials, our results have applications in the planning of future vaccine trials. We illustrate the method using data from a dengue vaccine 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.