Evaluation of surrogacy in the multi-trial setting based on information theory: an extension to ordinal outcomes

References

• Abrahantes, J. C., G. Molenberghs, T. Burzykowski, Z. Shkedy, A. A. Abad, and D. Renard. 2004. Choice of units of analysis and modeling strategies in multilevel hierarchical models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 47 (3):537–563. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2003.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., and G. Molenberghs. 2007. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective. Biometrics 63 (1):180–186. doi:10.1111/biom.2007.63.issue-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., G. Molenberghs, H. Geys, M. Buyse, and T. Vangeneugden. 2006. A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice’s criteria. Statistics in Medicine 25 (2):205–221. doi:10.1002/sim.2315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, A., H. Geys, G. Molenberghs, and T. Vangeneugden. 2002. Investigating the criterion validity of psychiatric symptom scales using surrogate marker validation methodology. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 12 (2):161–178. doi:10.1081/BIP-120015741.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alonso, A., T. Bigirumurame, T. Burzykowski, M. Buyse, G. Molenberghs, L. Muchene, N. J. Perualila, Z. Shkedy, and W. Van der Elst. 2016. Applied surrogate endpoint evaluation methods with sas and r. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, S. G., and B. S. Kramer. 2003. A perfect correlate does not a surrogate make. BMC Medical Research Methodology 3 (1):16. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bamford, J. M., P. A. G. Sandercock, C. P. Warlow, J. Slattery. 1989. Letter to the Editor: Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 20:828. doi:10.1161/01.STR.20.6.828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brillinger, D. R. 2004. Some data analyses using mutual information. Brazilian Journal Of Probability and Statistics 18:163–182.
   Google Scholar
• Burzykowski, T., G. Molenberghs, and M. Buyse. 2003. The validation of surrogate end points by using data from randomized clinical trials: A case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in society) 167 (1):103–124. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00293.x.
   Google Scholar
• Buyse, M., G. Molenberghs, T. Burzykowski, D. Renard, and H. Geys. 2000. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 1 (1):49–67. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dennis, M., P. Sandercock, J. Reid, C. Graham, J. Forbes, G. Murray, CLOTS (Clots in Legs Or sTockings after Stroke) Trials Collaboration. 2013. Effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression in reduction of risk of deep vein thrombosis in patients who have had a stroke (CLOTS 3): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 382(9891):516–524.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis, M., P. Sandercock, C. Graham, J. Forbes, J. Smith, and C. T. Collaboration. 2015. The Clots in Legs Or sTockings after Stroke (CLOTS) 3 trial: A randomised controlled trial to determine whether or not intermittent pneumatic compression reduces the risk of post-stroke deep vein thrombosis and to estimate its cost-effectiveness. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 19 (76):1. doi:10.3310/hta19760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ensor, H., R. J. Lee, C. Sudlow, and C. J. Weir. 2016. Statistical approaches for evaluating surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: A systematic review. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 26 (5):859–879. doi:10.1080/10543406.2015.1094811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth, D. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80 (1):27-38. doi:10.1093/biomet/80.1.27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frangakis, C. E., and D. B. Rubin. 2004. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58 (1):21–29. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joe, H. 1989. Relative entropy measures of multivariate dependence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84 (405):157–164. doi:10.1080/01621459.1989.10478751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, J. T. 1983. Information gain and a general measure of correlation. Biometrika 70 (1):163–173. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kullback, S. 1997. Information theory and statistics. New York, NY: Dover publications.
   Google Scholar
• Linfoot, E. H. 1957. An informational measure of correlation. Information and Control 1 (1):85–89. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(57)90116-X.
   Google Scholar
• Molenberghs, G., H. Geys, and M. Buyse. 2001. Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 20 (20):3023–3038. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenberghs, G., M. Buyse, H. Geys, D. Renard, T. Burzykowski, and A. Alonso. 2002. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 23 (6):607–625. doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00236-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Molenberghs, G., T. Burzykowski, A. Alonso, P. Assam, A. Tilahun, and M. Buyse. 2008. The meta-analytic framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 138 (2):432–449. doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2007.06.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryseley, A., A. Tilahun, A. Alonso, and G. Molenberghs. 2007. Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous true and binary surrogate endpoints. Clinical Trials 4 (6):587–597. doi:10.1177/1740774507084979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryseley, A., A. Tilahun, A. Alonso, and G. Molenberghs. 2011. An information-theoretic approach to surrogate-marker evaluation with failure time endpoints. Lifetime Data Analysis 17 (2):195–214. doi:10.1007/s10985-010-9185-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renard, D., H. Geys, G. Molenberghs, T. Burzykowski, and M. Buyse. 2002. Validation of surrogate endpoints in multiple randomized clinical trials with discrete outcomes. Biometrical Journal 44 (8):921–935. doi:10.1002/bimj.200290004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robins, J. M., and S. Greenland. 1992. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3 (2):143–155. doi:10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. In a mathematical theory of communication, vol. 27 doi:10.1002/bltj.1948.27.issue-4, 623–656. doi: 27 10.1002/bltj.1948.27.issue-4.
   Google Scholar
• Tilahun, A., A. Pryseley, A. Alonso, and G. Molenberghs. 2007. Flexible surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with continuous endpoints, using R and SAS. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51 (9):4152–4163. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2007.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilahun, A., A. Pryseley, A. Alonso, and G. Molenberghs. 2008. Information theory–based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomized clinical trials with binary endpoints, using SAS. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 18 (2):326–341. doi:10.1080/10543400701697190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swieten, J., P. Koudstaal, M. Visser, H. Schouten, and J. Van Gijn. 1988. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 19 (5):604–607. doi:10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar