代理标记评估:使用R的教程。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Layla Parast
{"title":"代理标记评估:使用R的教程。","authors":"Layla Parast","doi":"10.1002/sim.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The practice of using a surrogate marker to replace a primary outcome in clinical studies has become widespread. Typically, the primary outcome requires long-term patient follow-up, is expensive, or is invasive or burdensome for patients to measure, while the surrogate marker is not (or less so). Of course, a surrogate marker must be validated before it should be used to make a decision about the effectiveness of a treatment. There has been a tremendous amount of statistical and clinical research focused on evaluating and validating surrogate markers over the past 35 years. Although there is ongoing debate over the optimal evaluation method, the development of new approaches and insights has greatly enriched the field. In this tutorial, we describe available statistical frameworks for evaluating a surrogate marker and specifically focus on the practical implementation of the proportion of treatment effect explained framework. We consider both uncensored and censored outcomes, parametric and non-parametric estimation, evaluating multiple surrogates, heterogeneity in the utility of the surrogate marker, surrogate evaluation from a prediction perspective, and the surrogate paradox. We include R code to implement these procedures with a follow-along R markdown. We close with a discussion on open problems in this research area, particularly in terms of using the surrogate marker to test for treatment in a future study, which is the ultimate goal of surrogate marker evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21879,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Medicine","volume":"44 10-12","pages":"e70048"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surrogate Marker Evaluation: A Tutorial Using R.\",\"authors\":\"Layla Parast\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/sim.70048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The practice of using a surrogate marker to replace a primary outcome in clinical studies has become widespread. Typically, the primary outcome requires long-term patient follow-up, is expensive, or is invasive or burdensome for patients to measure, while the surrogate marker is not (or less so). Of course, a surrogate marker must be validated before it should be used to make a decision about the effectiveness of a treatment. There has been a tremendous amount of statistical and clinical research focused on evaluating and validating surrogate markers over the past 35 years. Although there is ongoing debate over the optimal evaluation method, the development of new approaches and insights has greatly enriched the field. In this tutorial, we describe available statistical frameworks for evaluating a surrogate marker and specifically focus on the practical implementation of the proportion of treatment effect explained framework. We consider both uncensored and censored outcomes, parametric and non-parametric estimation, evaluating multiple surrogates, heterogeneity in the utility of the surrogate marker, surrogate evaluation from a prediction perspective, and the surrogate paradox. We include R code to implement these procedures with a follow-along R markdown. We close with a discussion on open problems in this research area, particularly in terms of using the surrogate marker to test for treatment in a future study, which is the ultimate goal of surrogate marker evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistics in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"44 10-12\",\"pages\":\"e70048\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistics in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70048\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在临床研究中使用替代指标代替主要结果的做法已经变得普遍。通常,主要结果需要对患者进行长期随访,费用昂贵,或者对患者来说是侵入性的或难以测量的,而替代标记则不需要(或较少需要)。当然,在决定治疗的有效性之前,替代标记物必须经过验证。在过去的35年里,有大量的统计和临床研究集中在评估和验证替代标记物上。尽管关于最佳评估方法的争论仍在继续,但新方法和新见解的发展极大地丰富了该领域。在本教程中,我们描述了评估替代标记物的可用统计框架,并特别关注治疗效果比例解释框架的实际实施。我们考虑了未经审查和审查的结果,参数和非参数估计,评估多个代理,代理标记效用的异质性,从预测角度进行代理评估,以及代理悖论。我们包含了R代码来实现这些过程,并附带了R标记。我们最后讨论了该研究领域的开放性问题,特别是在未来研究中使用替代标记物来测试治疗方面,这是替代标记物评估的最终目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surrogate Marker Evaluation: A Tutorial Using R.

The practice of using a surrogate marker to replace a primary outcome in clinical studies has become widespread. Typically, the primary outcome requires long-term patient follow-up, is expensive, or is invasive or burdensome for patients to measure, while the surrogate marker is not (or less so). Of course, a surrogate marker must be validated before it should be used to make a decision about the effectiveness of a treatment. There has been a tremendous amount of statistical and clinical research focused on evaluating and validating surrogate markers over the past 35 years. Although there is ongoing debate over the optimal evaluation method, the development of new approaches and insights has greatly enriched the field. In this tutorial, we describe available statistical frameworks for evaluating a surrogate marker and specifically focus on the practical implementation of the proportion of treatment effect explained framework. We consider both uncensored and censored outcomes, parametric and non-parametric estimation, evaluating multiple surrogates, heterogeneity in the utility of the surrogate marker, surrogate evaluation from a prediction perspective, and the surrogate paradox. We include R code to implement these procedures with a follow-along R markdown. We close with a discussion on open problems in this research area, particularly in terms of using the surrogate marker to test for treatment in a future study, which is the ultimate goal of surrogate marker evaluation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Statistics in Medicine
Statistics in Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
334
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal aims to influence practice in medicine and its associated sciences through the publication of papers on statistical and other quantitative methods. Papers will explain new methods and demonstrate their application, preferably through a substantive, real, motivating example or a comprehensive evaluation based on an illustrative example. Alternatively, papers will report on case-studies where creative use or technical generalizations of established methodology is directed towards a substantive application. Reviews of, and tutorials on, general topics relevant to the application of statistics to medicine will also be published. The main criteria for publication are appropriateness of the statistical methods to a particular medical problem and clarity of exposition. Papers with primarily mathematical content will be excluded. The journal aims to enhance communication between statisticians, clinicians and medical researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信