Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
Causality in Epidemiology01:21

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Counterfactual Thinking01:19

Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactual thinking is a cognitive process wherein individuals mentally reconstruct alternative versions of past events, often beginning with “what if” or “if only.” This reflective mechanism plays a significant role in shaping emotional experiences and guiding future behavior. Though typically triggered by unfavorable or unexpected outcomes, counterfactual thinking can also emerge in mundane, everyday decisions and experiences, revealing its deep entrenchment in human cognition.Types of...
Fundamental Attribution Error01:14

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Time to Quadruple Therapy After Initial Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

JAMA cardiology·2026
Same author

The Effect of Vericiguat on Endothelial Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Pilot Randomized Study.

The American journal of cardiology·2026
Same author

Health Care Outcomes of Homelessness Prevention Programs in Veterans Experiencing Housing Instability.

JAMA health forum·2026
Same author

Comparative Effectiveness of SGLT2 Inhibitor and GLP-1 Receptor Agonist on Kidney and Cardiovascular Outcomes by Kidney Failure Risk.

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN·2026
Same author

Lifestyle, medication use, and age considerations with acne vulgaris: A prospective study.

JEADV clinical practice·2026
Same author

A meta-analysis of albuminuria as a surrogate endpoint for kidney failure.

Nature medicine·2025

Related Experiment Videos

Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes.

Marshall M Joffe1, Tom Greene

  • 1Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6021, USA. mjoffe@mail.med.upenn.edu

Biometrics
|September 2, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study explores four frameworks for evaluating surrogate markers in clinical trials, distinguishing between causal-effects and causal-association paradigms. Understanding these frameworks is crucial for accurately assessing treatment effects and surrogate marker validity.

Related Experiment Videos

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trials Methodology
  • Epidemiology

Background:

  • Surrogate markers are crucial in clinical trials for predicting treatment efficacy.
  • Evaluating the validity of surrogate markers is complex and requires robust frameworks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To delineate and compare four major frameworks for evaluating surrogate markers in randomized trials.
  • To introduce and differentiate the causal-effects (CE) and causal-association (CA) paradigms for surrogate marker assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Review and categorization of four established frameworks for surrogate marker evaluation.
  • Analysis of assumptions and estimation procedures within the CE and CA paradigms.
  • Simulation study to illustrate estimator properties under various scenarios.

Main Results:

  • Identified four distinct frameworks: conditional independence, direct/indirect effects, meta-analysis, and principal stratification.
  • Categorized frameworks into the causal-effects (CE) and causal-association (CA) paradigms.
  • Demonstrated relationships among different approaches and estimators through simulation.

Conclusions:

  • The causal-effects paradigm offers a predictive approach to surrogate marker validation.
  • The causal-association paradigm focuses on the association between treatment effects on surrogates and clinical outcomes.
  • Both paradigms have distinct applicability and require careful consideration in trial design and analysis.