Literature DB >> 35189671

Estimation of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a high-dimensional surrogate.

Ruixuan Rachel Zhou1, Sihai Dave Zhao2, Layla Parast3.   

Abstract

Clinical studies examining the effectiveness of a treatment with respect to some primary outcome often require long-term follow-up of patients and/or costly or burdensome measurements of the primary outcome of interest. Identifying a surrogate marker for the primary outcome of interest may allow one to evaluate a treatment effect with less follow-up time, less cost, or less burden. While much clinical and statistical work has focused on identifying and validating surrogate markers, available approaches tend to focus on settings in which only a single surrogate marker is of interest. Limited work has been done to accommodate the high-dimensional surrogate marker setting where the number of potential surrogates is greater than the sample size. In this article, we develop methods to estimate the proportion of treatment effect explained by high-dimensional surrogates. We study the asymptotic properties of our proposed estimator, propose inference procedures, and examine finite sample performance via a simulation study. We illustrate our proposed methods using data from a randomized study comparing a novel whey-based oral nutrition supplement with a standard supplement with respect to change in body fat percentage over 12 weeks, where the surrogate markers of interest are gene expression probesets.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical trials; high-dimensional; surrogate marker; treatment effect

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35189671      PMCID: PMC9534581          DOI: 10.1002/sim.9352

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.497


  40 in total

1.  Evaluating surrogate marker information using censored data.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Tianxi Cai; Lu Tian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Semiparametric inference for surrogate endpoints with bivariate censored data.

Authors:  Debashis Ghosh
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments.

Authors:  M Buyse; G Molenberghs
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker.

Authors:  D Y Lin; T R Fleming; V De Gruttola
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Herpes Simplex Virus Shedding Rate: Surrogate Outcome for Genital Herpes Recurrence Frequency and Lesion Rates, and Phase 2 Clinical Trials End Point for Evaluating Efficacy of Antivirals.

Authors:  Elfriede Agyemang; Amalia S Magaret; Stacy Selke; Christine Johnston; Larry Corey; Anna Wald
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 5.226

6.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria.

Authors:  R L Prentice
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Early Change in Urine Protein as a Surrogate End Point in Studies of IgA Nephropathy: An Individual-Patient Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lesley A Inker; Hasi Mondal; Tom Greene; Taylor Masaschi; Francesco Locatelli; Francesco P Schena; Ritsuko Katafuchi; Gerald B Appel; Bart D Maes; Philip K Li; Manuel Praga; Lucia Del Vecchio; Simeone Andrulli; Carlo Manno; Eduardo Gutierrez; Alex Mercer; Kevin J Carroll; Christopher H Schmid; Andrew S Levey
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 8.860

8.  Robust estimation of the proportion of treatment effect explained by surrogate marker information.

Authors:  Layla Parast; Mary M McDermott; Lu Tian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Mapping scores onto stages: mini-mental state examination and clinical dementia rating.

Authors:  Robert Perneczky; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Katja Komossa; Timo Grimmer; Janine Diehl; Alexander Kurz
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.105

10.  DNA methylation arrays as surrogate measures of cell mixture distribution.

Authors:  Eugene Andres Houseman; William P Accomando; Devin C Koestler; Brock C Christensen; Carmen J Marsit; Heather H Nelson; John K Wiencke; Karl T Kelsey
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.