Quantifying the effect of the surrogate marker by information gain

Biometrics

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 958-960

  Qu, Yongming ^a   Case, Michael ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Information gain; Kullback Leibler; Likelihood reduction factor; Surrogate marker; Treatment effect

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION GAIN; KULLBACK-LEIBLER; KULLBACK-LEIBLER INFORMATION; LIKELIHOOD REDUCTION FACTOR; MODEL ASSUMPTIONS; REDUCTION FACTOR; STATISTICAL VALIDATION; SURROGATE MARKER; TREATMENT EFFECTS;

BIOMETRICS;

INFORMATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SURROGATE METHOD;

ARTICLE; DISEASE MARKER; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 34548404813     PISSN: 0006341X     EISSN: 15410420     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00852_1.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Alonso, A., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., Geys, H., Shkedy, Z., Tibaldi, F., Abrahantes, J. C., and Buyse, M. (2004). Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: A reflection on the role of statistics in evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 60, 724 728.
2. Baker, S. G 2006a). Simple meta-analytic approach for using a binary surrogate endpoint to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint. Biostatistics 7, 57 70.
3. Baker, S. G 2006b). Surrogate endpoints: Wishful thinking or reality. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98, 502 503.
4. Buyse, M. and Molenberghs, G 1998). Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 54, 1014 1029.
5. Chen, C., Wang, H., and Snapinn, S. M 2003). Proportion of treatment effect (PTE) explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 22, 3349 3359.
6. Ettinger, B., Black, D. M., Mitlak, B. H., et al. 1999). Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: Results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 282, 637 645.
7. Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I., and Schatzkin, A. (1992). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 11, 167 178.
8. Kent, J 1983). Information gain and a general measure of correlation. Biometrika 70, 163 173.
9. Kullback, S. and Leibler, R. A 1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22, 79 86.
10. Li, Z., Meredith, M. P., and Hoseyni, M. S 2001). A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint. Statistics in Medicine 20, 3175 3188.
11. Lin, D. Y., Fleming, T. R., and De Gruttola, V 1997). Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 16, 1515 1527.
12. Prentice, R. L 1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 8, 431 440.
13. Qu, Y. and Case, M 2006). Quantifying the indirect treatment effects via surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine 25, 223 231.
14. Temple, R. J 1995). A Regulatory Authority's Opinion About Surrogate Endpoints. New York : Wiley.
15. Weir, C. J. and Walley, R. J 2006). Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: A literature review. Statistics in Medicine 25, 183 203.