ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025
A New Frequentist Implementation of the Daniels and Hughes Bivariate Meta-Analysis Model for Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translating treatment effects between correlated endpoints.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surrogate endpoints are used when the primary outcome is difficult to measure accurately. Determining if a measure is suitable to use as a surrogate endpoint is a challenging task and a variety of meta-analysis models have been proposed for this purpose. The Daniels and Hughes bivariate model for trial-level surrogate endpoint evaluation is gaining traction but presents difficulties for frequentist estimation and hitherto only Bayesian solutions have been available. This is because the marginal model is not a conventional linear model and the number of unknown parameters increases at the same rate as the number of studies. This second property raises immediate concerns that the maximum likelihood estimator of the model's unknown variance component may be downwardly biased. We derive maximum likelihood estimating equations to motivate a bias adjusted estimator of this parameter. The bias correction terms in our proposed estimating equation are easily computed and have an intuitively appealing algebraic form. A simulation study is performed to illustrate how this estimator overcomes the difficulties associated with maximum likelihood estimation. We illustrate our methods using two contrasting examples from oncology.
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.