The use of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: focus on clinical trials in cardiovascular diseases
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.958
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.737 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Surrogate endpoints include a wide range of laboratory or physical measurements used in clinical trials as a substitute for meaningful clinical endpoints that directly assess effects of the intervention(s) tested on mortality and/or morbidity. These surrogate endpoints are frequently employed in clinical trials and when used judiciously, can accelerate and focus the study of new therapies and can greatly enhance our understanding of their mechanisms of action. The current review provides a definition of surrogate endpoints, proposes practical criteria for establishing their validity, outlines some of the advantages, disadvantages and specific statistical considerations associated with their use in clinical trials and attempts also to highlight drug approval issues associated with the use of these endpoints. A number of examples are also provided related to the use of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials with special emphasis on their use in cardiovascular medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Topic
- Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Field
- Economics, Econometrics and Finance
- Canadian institutions
- Hamilton Health Sciences
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Surrogate endpointMedicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineClinical endpointEndpoint DeterminationClinical study designMedical physicsInternal medicine
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes