Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective

Biometrics

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 180-186

  Alonso, Ariel ^a   Molenberghs, Geert ^a  

^a HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Hierarchical model; Information theory; Surrogate endpoints

Indexed keywords

HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; QUALITY CONTROL;

CLINICAL STUDY; HIERARCHICAL MODEL; INDIVIDUAL LEVELS; SURROGATE ENDPOINT; UNIFIED FRAMEWORK;

INFORMATION THEORY;

INFORMATION; MODELING; THEORY;

ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; DISEASE MARKER; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; MALE; MEASUREMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 34247258392     PISSN: 0006341X     EISSN: 15410420     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00634.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Alonso, A., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., and Vangeneugden, T. (2002). Investigating the criterion validity of psychiatric symptom scales using surrogate marker validation methodology. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 12, 161-179.
2. Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., Geys, H., Shkedy, Z., Tibaldi, F., Abrahantes, J., and Buyse, M. (2004a). Prentice's approach and the metaanalytic paradigm: A reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 60, 724-728.
3. Alonso, A., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., and Kenward, M. G. (2004b). Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements: Canonical correlation approach. Biometrics 60, 845-853.
4. Alonso, A., Geys, H., and Molenberghs, G. (2006). A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria. Statistics in Medicine 25, 205-221.
5. Burzykowski, T., Molenberghs, G., and Buyse, M. (2005). The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. New York: Springer.
6. Buyse, M. and Molenberghs, G. (1998). The validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54, 1014-1029.
7. Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., and Geys, H. (2000). The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1, 49-67.
8. Cortiñas, J., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Shkedy, Z., Alonso, A., and Renard, D. (2004). Choice of units of analysis and modeling strategies in multilevel hierarchical models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 47, 537-563.
9. Cover, T. and Tomas, J. (1991). Elements of Information Theory. New York: Wiley.
10. Daniels, M. J. and Hughes, M. D. (1997). Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine 16, 1515-1527.
11. Freedman, L. (2001). Confidence intervals and statistical power of the validation ratio for surrogate or intermediate endpoints. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 96, 143-153.
12. Freedman, L., Graubard, B., and Schatzkin, A. (1992). Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 11, 167-178.
13. Kullback, S. and Leibler, R. (1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22, 79-86.
14. Molenberghs, G., Buyse, M., Geys, H., Renard, D., Burzykowski, T., and Alonso, A. (2002). Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 23, 607-625.
15. Nyquist, H. (1924). Certain factors affecting telegraph speed. Bell System Technical Journal 3, 324-346.
16. Prentice, R. (1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 8, 431-440.
17. Renard, D., Geys, H., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., and Buyse, M. (2002). Validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials with discrete outcomes. Biometrical Journal 44, 1-15.
18. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379-423, 623-656.
19. Weir, J. C. and Walley, J. R. (2006). Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: A literature review. Statistics in Medicine 27, 183-203.