The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments
Open accessAbstract
The validation of surrogate endpoints has been studied by Prentice (1989). He presented a definition as well as a set of criteria, which are equivalent only if the surrogate and true endpoints are binary. Freedman et al. (1992) supplemented these criteria with the so-called 'proportion explained'. Buyse and Molenberghs (1998) proposed replacing the proportion explained by two quantities: (1) the relative effect linking the effect of treatment on both endpoints and (2) an individual-level measure of agreement between both endpoints. The latter quantity carries over when data are available on several randomized trials, while the former can be extended to be a trial-level measure of agreement between the effects of treatment of both endpoints. This approach suggests a new method for the validation of surrogate endpoints, and naturally leads to the prediction of the effect of treatment upon the true endpoint, given its observed effect upon the surrogate endpoint. These ideas are illustrated using data from two sets of multicenter trials: one comparing chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, the other comparing interferon-alpha with placebo for patients with age-related macular degeneration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models
LIANG, K.-Y., & ZEGER, S. L. (1986) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 · Cited by 18,550
Littell, R. C. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,341
Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data
Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529876 · Cited by 8,923
(2001) · Statistics for Psychologists · doi:10.4324/9781410605542-11 · Cited by 6,877
Approximate Inference in Generalized Linear Mixed Models
Breslow, N. E., & Clayton, D. G. (1993) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10594284 · Cited by 4,629
Models for Longitudinal Data: A Generalized Estimating Equation Approach
Zeger, S. L., Liang, K.-Y., & Albert, P. S. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531734 · Cited by 4,505
Plasma Viral Load and CD4+ Lymphocytes as Prognostic Markers of HIV-1 Infection
Mellors, J. W., Munoz, A., Giorgi, J. V., Margolick, J. B., Tassoni, C. J., Gupta, P., Kingsley, L. A., Todd, J. A., Saah, A. J., Detels, R., et al. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-12-199706150-00003 · Cited by 2,067
Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria
Prentice, R. L. (1989) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780080407 · Cited by 2,057
Surrogate End Points in Clinical Trials: Are We Being Misled?
Fleming, T. R., & DeMets, D. L. (1996) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-125-7-199610010-00011 · Cited by 1,651
Multivariate Statistical Modelling Based on Generalized Linear Models
Fahrmeir, L., & Tutz, G. (1994) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0010-4 · Cited by 1,391
Cited by
Sargent, D. J., Wieand, H. S., Haller, D. G., Gray, R., Benedetti, J. K., Buyse, M., Labianca, R., Seitz, J. F., O'Callaghan, C. J., Francini, G., et al. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.01.6071 · Cited by 713
Development of biomarkers in multiple sclerosis
Bielekova, B., & Martin, R. (2004) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awh176 · Cited by 299
Conforti, F., Pala, L., Sala, I., Oriecuia, C., De Pas, T., Specchia, C., Graffeo, R., Pagan, E., Queirolo, P., Pennacchioli, E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-066381 · Cited by 170
Oba, K., Paoletti, X., Alberts, S., Bang, Y.-J., Benedetti, J., Bleiberg, H., Catalano, P., Lordick, F., Michiels, S., Morita, S., et al. (2013) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djt270 · Cited by 168
Self-citationAlternative clinical end points in rectal cancer—are we getting closer?
Glynne-Jones, R., Mawdsley, S., Pearce, T., & Buyse, M. (2006) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl173 · Cited by 88
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., & Geys, H.
- Venue
- Biostatistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-67
- ISSN
- 1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2126133903
- Cited by
- 624
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 9.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49
- The paper
- Buyse, M., Molenberghs, G., Burzykowski, T., Renard, D., & Geys, H. (2000). The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
