129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17447943)
1. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective.
Alonso A; Molenberghs G
Biometrics; 2007 Mar; 63(1):180-6. PubMed ID: 17447943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating time to cancer recurrence as a surrogate marker for survival from an information theory perspective.
Alonso A; Molenberghs G
Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Oct; 17(5):497-504. PubMed ID: 18285443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria.
Alonso A; Molenberghs G; Geys H; Buyse M; Vangeneugden T
Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(2):205-21. PubMed ID: 16220497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomized clinical trials with repeated measurements: canonical correlation approach.
Alonso A; Geys H; Molenberghs G; Kenward MG; Vangeneugden T
Biometrics; 2004 Dec; 60(4):845-53. PubMed ID: 15606404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A unified framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in mental-health clinical trials.
Molenberghs G; Burzykowski T; Alonso A; Assam P; Tilahun A; Buyse M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2010 Jun; 19(3):205-36. PubMed ID: 19608602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Alternative methods to evaluate trial level surrogacy.
Abrahantes JC; Shkedy Z; Molenberghs G
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(3):194-208. PubMed ID: 18559408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Does the decision in a validation process of a surrogate endpoint change with level of significance of treatment effect? A proposal on validation of surrogate endpoints.
Sertdemir Y; Burgut R
Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 Jan; 30(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 18809512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous true and binary surrogate endpoints.
Pryseley A; Tilahun A; Alonso A; Molenberghs G
Clin Trials; 2007; 4(6):587-97. PubMed ID: 18042568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Simulation studies of surrogate endpoint validation using single trial and multitrial statistical approaches.
Lassere M; Johnson K; Hughes M; Altman D; Buyse M; Galbraith S; Wells G
J Rheumatol; 2007 Mar; 34(3):616-9. PubMed ID: 17343308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints.
Lassere MN
Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Jun; 17(3):303-40. PubMed ID: 17925313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials.
Baker SG
Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Oct; 17(5):505-14. PubMed ID: 18285436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Applying concepts of generalizability theory on clinical trial data to investigate sources of variation and their impact on reliability.
Vangeneugden T; Laenen A; Geys H; Renard D; Molenberghs G
Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):295-304. PubMed ID: 15737106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Information theory-based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with binary endpoints, using SAS.
Tilahun A; Pryseley A; Alonso A; Molenberghs G
J Biopharm Stat; 2008; 18(2):326-41. PubMed ID: 18327724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Bayesian adjusted R2 for the meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate time-to-event endpoints in clinical trials.
Renfro LA; Shi Q; Sargent DJ; Carlin BP
Stat Med; 2012 Apr; 31(8):743-61. PubMed ID: 22161275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema.
Lassere MN; Johnson KR; Boers M; Tugwell P; Brooks P; Simon L; Strand V; Conaghan PG; Ostergaard M; Maksymowych WP; Landewe R; Bresnihan B; Tak PP; Wakefield R; Mease P; Bingham CO; Hughes M; Altman D; Buyse M; Galbraith S; Wells G
J Rheumatol; 2007 Mar; 34(3):607-15. PubMed ID: 17343307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A maximum entropy approach for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints based on causal inference.
Alonso A; Van der Elst W; Molenberghs G
Stat Med; 2018 Dec; 37(29):4525-4538. PubMed ID: 30141219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing surrogates as trial endpoints using mixed models.
Korn EL; Albert PS; McShane LM
Stat Med; 2005 Jan; 24(2):163-82. PubMed ID: 15515150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: a literature review.
Weir CJ; Walley RJ
Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(2):183-203. PubMed ID: 16252272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: a reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints.
Alonso A; Molenberghs G; Burzykowski T; Renard D; Geys H; Shkedy Z; Tibaldi F; Abrahantes JC; Buyse M
Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):724-8. PubMed ID: 15339295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Practical issues arising in an exploratory analysis evaluating progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer.
Hughes MD
Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Oct; 17(5):487-95. PubMed ID: 18285440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
