Sufficient conditions for concluding surrogacy based on observed data

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 19, 2011, Pages 2422-2434

  Wu, Zhenguo ^a   He, Ping ^a   Geng, Zhi ^a  

^a PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Causal effect; Prentice's criterion; Surrogate endpoint

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAUSAL MODELING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CRITERION RELATED VALIDITY; DRUG EFFECT; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRENTICE CRITERION; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79960559978     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4273     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Alonso A, Molenbergh G, Surrogate end points: hopes and perils. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2008; 8: 255-259.
2. Baker SG, Surrogate endpoints: wishful thinking or reality? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98: 502-503.
3. Fleming TR, DeMets DL, Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 1996; 125: 605-613.
4. Manns B, Owen WF, Winkelmayer WC, Devereaux PJ, Tonelli M, Surrogate markers in clinical studies: problems solved or created? American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2006; 48: 159-166.
5. Prentice RL, Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8: 431-440.
6. Berger VW, Does the Prentice criterion validate surrogate endpoints? Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23: 1571-1578.
7. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer: New York, 2005.
8. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11: 167-178.
9. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB, Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 2002; 58: 21-29.
10. Gilbert PB, Hudgens MG, Evaluating candidate principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 2008; 64: 1146-1154.
11. Li Y, Taylor JMG, Elliott MR, A Bayesian approach to surrogacy assessment using principal stratification in clinical trials. Biometrics 2010; 66: 523-531.
12. Lauritzen SL, Discussion on causality. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 2004; 31: 189-192.
13. Joffe MM, Greene T, Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics 2009; 65: 530-538.
14. Chen H, Geng Z, Jia J, Criteria for surrogate endpoints. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 2007; 69: 919-932.
15. Berger VW, Valid adjustment of randomized comparisons for binary covariates. Biometrical Journal 2004; 46( 5): 589-594.
16. Ju C, Geng Z, Criteria for surrogate endpoints based on causal distributions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 2010; 72: 129-142.
17. Holland PW, Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1986; 81: 945-960.
18. Rubin DB, Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 1974; 66: 688-701.
19. McCullagh P, Nelder JA, Generalized Linear Models (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall: London, 1989.
20. Cox DR, Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1972; 34: 187-220.
21. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Criteria for the validation of surrogate end-points in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998; 54: 1014-1029.
22. Berger VW, Zhang S, Zhou YY, Comments on 'Modeling and predicting extrapolated probabilities with outlooks' by M. Fygenson. Statistica Sinica 2008; 18: 55-57.
23. Chung KL, A Course in Probability Theory (2nd edn). Academic Press: New York, 1974.
24. Lehmann EL, Romano JP, Testing Statistical Hypotheses (3rd edn). Springer: New York, 2005.