TY - JOUR
T1 - Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases
AU - Freedman, Laurence S.
AU - Graubard, Barry I.
AU - Schatzkin, Arthur
PY - 1992/1/30
Y1 - 1992/1/30
N2 - We discuss the implementation of a criterion due to Prentice for the statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. The criterion involves examining in a cohort or intervention study whether an exposure or intervention effect, adjusted for the intermediate endpoint, is reduced to zero. For example, to examine whether serum cholesterol level is an intermediate endpoint for coronary heart disease (CHD), we may investigate the effect of the cholesterol lowering drug cholestyramine on CHD incidence adjusted for serum cholesterol levels. We show that use of this criterion will usually demand some form of model selection. When the unadjusted exposure or treatment effect is less than four times its standard error, the analysis can usually lead only to a weak form of validation, a conclusion that the data are not inconsistent with the validation criterion. More significant unadjusted exposure effects offer the potential for stronger types of validation statement such as ‘the intermediate endpoint explains at least 50 per cent (or 75 per cent) of the exposure effect’.
AB - We discuss the implementation of a criterion due to Prentice for the statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic disease. The criterion involves examining in a cohort or intervention study whether an exposure or intervention effect, adjusted for the intermediate endpoint, is reduced to zero. For example, to examine whether serum cholesterol level is an intermediate endpoint for coronary heart disease (CHD), we may investigate the effect of the cholesterol lowering drug cholestyramine on CHD incidence adjusted for serum cholesterol levels. We show that use of this criterion will usually demand some form of model selection. When the unadjusted exposure or treatment effect is less than four times its standard error, the analysis can usually lead only to a weak form of validation, a conclusion that the data are not inconsistent with the validation criterion. More significant unadjusted exposure effects offer the potential for stronger types of validation statement such as ‘the intermediate endpoint explains at least 50 per cent (or 75 per cent) of the exposure effect’.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026573094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/sim.4780110204
DO - 10.1002/sim.4780110204
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 1579756
AN - SCOPUS:0026573094
SN - 0277-6715
VL - 11
SP - 167
EP - 178
JO - Statistics in Medicine
JF - Statistics in Medicine
IS - 2
ER -