Adjustment for the measurement error in evaluating biomarkers

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 22, 2010, Pages 2338-2346

  Li, Wen ^a   Qu, Yongming ^b  

^a SINGAPORE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Singapore)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Measurement error; Proportion of the information gain; Simulation extrapolation estimator; Surrogate marker

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; RALOXIFENE;

ARTICLE; BONE DENSITY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT ERROR; OSTEOPOROSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SIMULATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTEBRA FRACTURE;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; BONE DENSITY; BONE DENSITY CONSERVATION AGENTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OSTEOPOROSIS; RALOXIFENE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77956944276     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3993     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Chakravarty A. Regulatory aspects in using surrogate markers in clinical trials. The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints, Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M (eds). Springer: New York, NY, 2005.
2. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8:431-440.
3. Fleming TR, Prentice RL, Pepe MS, Glidden D. Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials: with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13:447-454.
4. Tsiatis AA. Surrogate markers in AIDS clinical trials. Presented at the ENAR Meetings, Richmond, VA, 18-20 March, 1996.
5. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:167-178.
6. Alonso A, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H, Shkedy Z, Tibaldi F, Abrahantes JC, Buyse M. Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: a reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 2004; 60:724-728.
7. Alonso A, Molenberghs G, Geys H, Buyse M, Vangeneugden T. A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 25:205-221.
8. Qu Y, Case M. Quantifying the effect of the surrogate marker by information gain. Biometrics 2007; 63:958-963.
9. Kullback S, Leibler RA. On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1951; 22:79-86.
10. Qu Y, Kulkarni PM, Sanger TM. Estimating the response rate in the presence of measurement error. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:197-211.
11. Sarkar S, Qu Y. Quantifying the treatment effect explained by markers in the presence of measurement error. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:1955-1963.
12. Cook JR, Stefanski LA. Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1994; 89:1314-1328.
13. Fuller WA. Measurement Error Models. Wiley: New York, 1987.
14. Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA, Craineceanu CM. Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall, CRC Press: London, Boca Raton, FL, 2006.
15. Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, Knickerbocker RK, Nickelsen T, Genant HK, Christiansen C, Delmas PD, Zanchetta JR, Stakkestad J, Glüer CC, Krueger K, Cohen FJ, Eckert S, Ensrud KE, Avioli LV, Lips P, Cummings SR. 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 1999; 282:637-645.