ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Translating treatment effects between correlated endpoints.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical researchers frequently need to answer: 'If a treatment changes endpoint 1 by X%, what change in endpoint 2 should we expect?' Current meta-analytic approaches either produce biased estimates (Daniels-Hughes) or provide correlation measures without explicit translational coefficients. We demonstrate how multivariate random-effects meta-analysis can derive the Expected Translational Association (η), which translates treatment effects across correlated endpoints, simultaneously fitting all correlated endpoints through their shared variance-covariance structure, yielding unbiased estimates and nominal confidence coverage. For convenience, we refer to this stacked implementation as SLIM (Stacked LInear Mixed Effects Model). Extensive simulations demonstrated that SLIM maintains near-zero bias and nominal coverage across scenarios, while the Daniels-Hughes approach exhibits substantial bias due to measurement-error-in-covariates, with bias persisting as sample size increases. Using the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) dataset, we demonstrate how this approach quantifies translational associations between growth-rate and rupture-risk endpoints and enables quantitative biomarker-outcome "what if" analyses, while showing that Bayesian meta-regression approaches can underestimate risk at clinically critical ranges. The framework generalizes naturally to multivariate systems, offering a rigorous and transparent foundation for evidence synthesis in translational science.
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.