Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39377516›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2024

Group sequential testing of a treatment effect using a surrogate marker.

Layla Parast, Jay Bartroff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Layla ParastDepartment of Statistics and Data Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-1009
Jay BartroffDepartment of Statistics and Data Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, United States.

Funding

Robust Statistical Methods to Identify and Use Surrogate Markers in DiabetesR01DK118354 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI PARAST, LAYLA · 2018 to 2025
$2.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK118354NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK118354
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of surrogate markers is motivated by their potential to make decisions sooner about a treatment effect. However, few methods have been developed to actually use a surrogate marker to test for a treatment effect in a future study. Most existing methods consider combining surrogate marker and primary outcome information to test for a treatment effect, rely on fully parametric methods where strict parametric assumptions are made about the relationship between the surrogate and the outcome, and/or assume the surrogate marker is measured at only a single time point. Recent work has proposed a nonparametric test for a treatment effect using only surrogate marker information measured at a single time point by borrowing information learned from a prior study where both the surrogate and primary outcome were measured. In this paper, we utilize this nonparametric test and propose group sequential procedures that allow for early stopping of treatment effect testing in a setting where the surrogate marker is measured repeatedly over time. We derive the properties of the correlated surrogate-based nonparametric test statistics at multiple time points and compute stopping boundaries that allow for early stopping for a significant treatment effect, or for futility. We examine the performance of our proposed test using a simulation study and illustrate the method using data from two distinct AIDS clinical trials.

Indexed as

BiomarkersComputer SimulationBiometryData Interpretation, StatisticalHIV InfectionsHumansModels, StatisticalStatistics, NonparametricTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersclinical trialfutility stoppinggroup sequential testingstopping boundariessurrogate marker

Identifiers

PMID39377516
PMCPMC11459368

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.