The State of Intermediate Clinical Endpoints as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Prostate Cancer in 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, selection of intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) in prostate cancer (PCa) trials largely depended on qualitative assessments; however, the advancing quality of research necessitates a robust correlation with overall survival (OS). This review summarises the results from several high-quality meta-analyses that explored the validity of ICEs as surrogates for OS. We found strong evidence that metastasis-free survival can serve as an ICE in localized PCa. In advanced disease, valid ICEs were identified only within the context of metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, including radiological and clinical progression-free survival; however, concerns remain regarding their use owing to the limited generalisability of the data used to validate their surrogacy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Intermediate clinical endpoints can reduce the costs of trials and allow earlier introduction of new treatment methods. This article summarises results from studies verifying the validity of these endpoints as surrogates for overall survival.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
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.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".