Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41146447›Full record

ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025

Efficient Testing Using Surrogate Information.

Rebecca Knowlton, Layla Parast

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Rebecca KnowltonDepartment of Statistics and Data Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2806-2185
Layla ParastDepartment of Statistics and Data Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.

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

In modern clinical trials, there is immense pressure to use surrogate markers in place of an expensive or long-term primary outcome to make more timely decisions about treatment effectiveness. However, using a surrogate marker to test for a treatment effect can be difficult and controversial. Existing methods tend to either rely on fully parametric methods where strict assumptions are made about the relationship between the surrogate and the outcome, or assume the surrogate marker is valid for the entire study population. In this paper, we develop a fully nonparametric method for efficient testing using surrogate information (ETSI). Our approach is specifically designed for settings where there is heterogeneity in the utility of the surrogate marker, that is, the surrogate is valid for certain patient subgroups and not others. ETSI enables treatment effect estimation and hypothesis testing via kernel-based estimation for a setting where the surrogate is used in place of the primary outcome for individuals for whom the surrogate is valid, and the primary outcome is purposefully only measured in the remaining patients. In addition, we provide a framework for future study design with power and sample size estimates based on our proposed testing procedure. Throughout, we assume a continuous surrogate and a primary outcome that may be discrete or continuous. We demonstrate the performance of our methods via a simulation study and application to two distinct HIV clinical trials.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBiometryClinical Trials as TopicHIV InfectionsHumansBiomarkersclinical trialheterogeneitystudy designsurrogate markerstreatment effect

Identifiers

PMID41146447
PMCPMC12592928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.