Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41019100›Full record

ArticleEpidemiologic methods2025

Regression calibration for time-to-event outcomes: mitigating bias due to measurement error in real-world endpoints.

Benjamin Ackerman, Ryan W Gan, Youyi Zhang, Juned Siddique, James Roose, Jennifer L Lund, Janick Weberpals, Jocelyn R Wang, Craig S Meyer, Jennifer Hayden and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiologic methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Benjamin AckermanJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2522-6623
Ryan W GanJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Youyi ZhangJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Juned SiddiquePreventive Medicine and Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
James RooseFlatiron Health, New York, NY, USA.
Jennifer L LundDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Janick WeberpalsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jocelyn R WangJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Craig S MeyerJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Jennifer HaydenJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Khaled SarsourJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.
Ashita S BataviaJohnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: In drug development, there is increasing interest in leveraging real-world data (RWD) to augment trial data and generate evidence about treatment efficacy. However, comparing patient outcomes across trial and routine clinical care settings can be susceptible to bias, namely due to differences in how and when disease assessments occur. This can introduce measurement error in RWD relative to trial standards and lead to bias when comparing endpoints. We develop a novel statistical method, survival regression calibration (SRC), to mitigate measurement error bias in time-to-event RWD outcomes and improve inferences when combining trials with RWD in oncology. Methods: SRC extends upon existing regression calibration methods to address measurement error in time-to-event RWD outcomes. The method entails fitting separate Weibull regression models using trial-like ('true') and real-world-like ('mismeasured') outcome measures in a validation sample, and then calibrating parameter estimates in the full study according to the estimated bias in Weibull parameters. We evaluate performance of SRC under varying degrees of existing measurement error bias via simulation, and then illustrate how SRC can address measurement error when estimating median progression-free survival (mPFS) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma RWD. Results: When measurement error exists between trial and real-world mPFS, SRC can effectively account for its resulting bias. SRC yields greater reduction in measurement error bias than standard regression calibration methods, due to its suitability for time-to-event outcomes. Conclusions: Outcome measurement error is important to address when combining trials and RWD, as it may lead to biased results. Our SRC method helps mitigate such bias, improving comparability between real-world and trial endpoints and strengthening evidence of treatment efficacy.

Indexed as

calibrationendpointsmeasurement errorreal-world datareal-world evidencetime to event

Identifiers

PMID41019100
PMCPMC12464481

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.