Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Assessing Surrogate Heterogeneity in Real World Data Using Meta-Learners

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A framework to estimate per-patient surrogate strength in non-randomized data, with a procedure to identify individuals for whom the surrogate can replace the primary outcome.

desk verdict A useful framework for surrogate heterogeneity in observational data, but the plug-in estimator's consistency is not actually established and the simulations never stress it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15386 v1 pith:4LCH52YA submitted 2025-04-21 stat.ME cs.LGstat.ML

Rebecca Knowlton , Layla Parast This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEcs.LGstat.ML MSC 62G0562G0862F40
keywords surrogatemarkersproportionoftreatmenteffectexplainedheterogeneityobservationaldatameta-learnersT-learnercausalinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that surrogate strength can be estimated at the individual level in non-randomized, observational data, where treatment is confounded rather than randomly assigned. It defines a covariate-conditional version of the proportion of treatment effect explained, $R_S(x) = 1 - \Delta_S(x)/\Delta(x)$, and proposes a T-learner meta-learner framework that estimates each ingredient with flexible base learners. If the framework works, researchers can identify which patients have a surrogate strong enough to replace the primary outcome, and which do not, in studies where randomization is impossible. The paper supports the claim through simulations with three base learners and an application evaluating hemoglobin A1c as a surrogate for fasting plasma glucose in a national health survey.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional proportion of treatment effect explained, $R_S(x) = 1 - \Delta_S(x)/\Delta(x)$, where $\Delta(x)$ is the conditional average treatment effect and $\Delta_S(x)$ is the treatment effect left after the surrogate is accounted for, integrated over the control distribution of $S$. The machinery that carries the argument is the T-learner meta-learner: instead of one model with treatment as a covariate, separate base learners are fitted for the treatment and control groups, estimating $\lambda_g(x)$, $\mu_g(s,x)$, and $\zeta_0(x)$. The residual effect is computed by plugging the fitted control-surrogate mean $\hat{\zeta}_0(x)$ into the difference of the two fitted outcome regressions, which turns a difficult integral into a standard prediction task. Three base learners are used, linear models, generalized additive models, and regression forests, giving practitioners a bias-variance spectrum, and bootstrap resampling provides confidence intervals for $R_S(x)$.

What would settle it

Run the paper's simulation machinery with a substantial conditional variance $\operatorname{Var}(S(0)\mid X)$ and with an outcome model in which $\mu_1(s,x)-\mu_0(s,x)$ genuinely changes with $s$; if the plug-in estimator's bias fails to vanish as the sample size grows, the central consistency claim for $\hat{\Delta}_S(x)$ fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that surrogate heterogeneity in real-world data is identifiable and estimable under the stated causal assumptions. The conditional treatment effect $\Delta(x)$ and residual treatment effect $\Delta_S(x)$ are written as supervised regressions, and the plug-in estimator $\hat{\Delta}_S(x) = \hat{\mu}_1(\hat{\zeta}_0(x), x) - \hat{\mu}_0(\hat{\zeta}_0(x), x)$ evaluates the fitted outcome-on-surrogate regressions at the predicted control-surrogate mean. The resulting $\hat{R}_S(x) = 1 - \hat{\Delta}_S(x)/\hat{\Delta}(x)$ is used in a bootstrap-based identification procedure: if the lower confidence bound for $R_S(x_i)$ exceeds a prespecified threshold $\kappa$, the surrogate is declared strong enough for that individual. The paper states that this is the first method for surrogate heterogeneity in non-randomized settings, and illustrates it with an obesity-versus-non-obesity comparison in which hemoglobin A1c is evaluated as a surrogate for fasting plasma glucose.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the plug-in step $\hat{\Delta}_S(x) = \hat{\mu}_1(\hat{\zeta}_0(x),x) - \hat{\mu}_0(\hat{\zeta}_0(x),x)$ faithfully approximates the integral over the distribution of $S(0)$ given $X$, an approximation the paper justifies only when the conditional variance of $S(0)$ is small or when the outcome regressions are smooth enough that perturbations in $S$ do not change the expectation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher with observational data and a candidate surrogate can estimate a per-patient curve of surrogate strength instead of a single global number.
  • With a prespecified threshold $\kappa$, the framework can classify each future patient as eligible or ineligible for surrogate-only outcome measurement.
  • Flexible base learners allow the method to track nonlinear and non-additive confounding, with linear models available when the relationships are close to linear.
  • The bootstrap confidence intervals, combined with a multiple-testing correction, make the identification procedure output a statistically supported set of patients.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the plug-in approximation is exact in the paper's simulation settings because the outcome models are linear in the surrogate and $\mu_1(s,x) - \mu_0(s,x)$ is independent of $s$; a simulation with an interaction between the surrogate and treatment in the outcome would stress the method beyond its current validation.
  • Editorial inference: the same conditional-PTE machinery could be combined with cross-fitting or an adaptive threshold $\kappa$ tied to the cost of measuring the primary outcome, which the paper mentions as an open practical question.
  • Editorial inference: the framework's logic extends naturally to longitudinal or time-to-event surrogates in observational settings, where the residual-effect integral would require estimating conditional distributions of the surrogate trajectory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for assessing heterogeneity in the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE) by a surrogate marker in observational (non-randomized) data. It defines a conditional PTE RS(x) = 1 − ΔS(x)/Δ(x), where Δ(x) is the conditional average treatment effect and ΔS(x) is a residual treatment effect after accounting for the surrogate, and estimates these quantities with T-learners using linear models, GAMs, and regression forests as base learners. The residual effect is estimated by a plug-in: bΔS(x) = bμ1(bζ0(x), x) − bμ0(bζ0(x), x), where ζ0(x) = E(S(0)|X=x). The paper also proposes an individual-level identification procedure that flags subjects for whom RS(x) exceeds a threshold κ, and evaluates the methods via simulations and an NHANES application with HbA1c as a surrogate for fasting plasma glucose in the obesity comparison.

Significance. If the consistency claim were supported, the framework would fill a genuine gap in the surrogate literature by allowing heterogeneity in PTE to be estimated in real-world data with flexible machine-learning tools. The paper is clearly written, provides reproducible R code and an R package, and its application is relevant. However, the central theoretical claim for the plug-in estimator is not justified under the stated assumptions, and the simulation design does not exercise the case where the plug-in approximation is nontrivial. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main message.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (1)] The consistency argument for bΔS(x) relies on (C5) and (C6), but these conditions do not imply that the plug-in error vanishes. Under Lipschitz continuity (C5), |∫ μg(s,x)dF_{S|X,G=0}(s) − μg(ζ0(x),x)| = O(sqrt(Var(S(0)|X))), and Var(S(0)|X) is a fixed feature of the data-generating process, not a quantity that shrinks with n. Condition (C6) ('sufficiently small') is not an asymptotic condition, and the manuscript does not provide a sequence of data-generating processes under which the error tends to zero. The plug-in is exact only if μ1(s,x) − μ0(s,x) is affine in s (or if Var(S(0)|X)=0), a condition that is not stated, proved, or cited. Consequently, the claim that bΔS(x) consistently estimates ΔS(x) for arbitrary Lipschitz outcome models is not justified.
  2. [Appendix A] In every simulation setting (Settings 1–4), the outcome models contain the term +2S with the same coefficient in both treatment groups, so μ1(s,x) − μ0(s,x) is independent of s. Under this structure, the plug-in estimator equals the integral over S(0)|X exactly (apart from estimation error in ζ0 and the μg), so the simulations provide no evidence about the magnitude of the plug-in bias when the difference is nonlinear in s. At least one simulation with an S×X interaction or a quadratic term in S in the outcome model is needed to test the central consistency claim.
  3. [Section 3.3] The asymptotic discussion is informal: there is no theorem stating conditions under which bΔS(x) converges to ΔS(x), and no rates are given for the base learners. Separate consistency of bλg, bμg, and bζ0 does not automatically yield consistency of the combination bμ1(bζ0,x) − bμ0(bζ0,x), because that also requires uniform convergence of bμg and control of the error in bζ0. The paper should either state a formal result with explicit conditions (e.g., affineness of the difference and uniform convergence rates) or replace the plug-in with an estimator for which consistency follows from existing theory, such as an integration step over an estimated conditional distribution of S(0)|X.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3] In the sentence introducing the residual treatment effect, 'ΔS(w)' appears to be a typo and should read 'ΔS(x)'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The claim that Monte Carlo integration 'becomes infeasible as the dimension of X grows' is vague; weighted resampling from the observed control group is a standard approach that does not necessarily require kernel density estimation in X. This is a presentation issue, not a substantive one.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The caption says 'Bias reflects the absolute value of the difference between the estimate and the truth,' but the column is simply labeled 'Bias.' Renaming the column to 'Abs. Bias' or 'Median Abs. Bias' would improve clarity.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract says the method examines 'heterogeneity in the surrogacy of hemoglobin A1c as a surrogate for fasting plasma glucose,' but the application uses obesity as the exposure and glycemic measures as surrogate/outcome. Consider clarifying the causal contrast in the abstract and in the example description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed RS(x) estimator is a plug-in meta-learner, not a refit of its own target, and the cited prior work is background rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central estimand RS(x) = 1 − ΔS(x)/Δ(x) is defined from potential-outcome contrasts, and the estimator is constructed by fitting standard learners for λg(x), μg(s,x), and ζ0(x), then plugging predictions into the defining formula on a separate test set. No parameter is fitted to RS(x) itself, and the simulation and NHANES applications evaluate the estimator against held-out truth or external data. The self-citations (Knowlton et al. 2025; Parast et al. 2023a,b) are used to establish background on randomized-setting surrogate heterogeneity and to motivate the gap this paper addresses; they do not supply the identification or estimation argument for the observational framework. Consistency of the base learners is attributed to external, independent results (Wood; Athey et al.; Wager and Athey), not to a self-citation chain. The main statistical weakness is the plug-in approximation in ΔS(x): Condition (C6) that Var(S(0)|X) is 'sufficiently small' does not by itself make the bias vanish asymptotically unless μg is affine in s or the variance tends to zero, and the simulations only exercise settings where μ1(s,x)−μ0(s,x) is independent of s. This is a genuine bias/consistency concern, but it is not circular reasoning: the estimator is not defined in terms of the estimand, and no fitted quantity is being renamed as a prediction. The paper's derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, even though its asymptotic justification is incomplete.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimation rests on the causal assumptions C1-C5, plus the plug-in justification C6 and an unstated affine-regression condition. The only analyst-chosen numeric input is the threshold kappa used for identification, which does not enter the estimation of RS(x). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Threshold kappa = 0.5 in simulations, 0.70 in example
    User-specified cutoff for declaring a surrogate strong; not estimated from data, but directly controls the individual identification rule in Section 4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption C1-C4: Consistency, positivity, unconfoundedness, and cross-world independence linking potential outcomes to observed data.
    Section 2.1 states these are strong, untestable causal assumptions required for identification of the conditional PTE.
  • standard math C5: E(Y(g)|X=x) and E(Y(g)|S(g),X=x) are Lipschitz continuous in their arguments.
    Section 2.1 C5; used to justify that small perturbations in s lead to controlled changes in mu_g.
  • ad hoc to paper C6: Var(S(0)|X) is sufficiently small so that zeta0(x)=E(S(0)|X) is representative of S(0).
    Section 3.3 introduces this condition specifically to justify the plug-in estimator for the integral in Delta_S(x); it is not a general property of real-world surrogates and does not by itself guarantee vanishing approximation error asymptotically.
  • ad hoc to paper Unstated: the regression difference mu_1(s,x)-mu_0(s,x) is approximately affine in s, so that evaluating it at the conditional mean zeta0(x) approximates its expectation over S(0)|X.
    The plug-in estimator bmu_1(bzeta0(x),x)-bmu_0(bzeta0(x),x) replaces an integral with a point evaluation; this is only exact for affine mu_g (or for degenerate conditional surrogates), and the paper does not state or test this condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Surrogate Heterogeneity in Real World Data Using Meta-Learners." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LCH52YA

@misc{pith2026250415386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Surrogate Heterogeneity in Real World Data Using Meta-Learners},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LCH52YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15386}
}
read the original abstract

Surrogate markers are most commonly studied within the context of randomized clinical trials. However, the need for alternative outcomes extends beyond these settings and may be more pronounced in real-world public health and social science research, where randomized trials are often impractical. Research on identifying surrogates in real-world non-randomized data is scarce, as available statistical approaches for evaluating surrogate markers tend to rely on the assumption that treatment is randomized. While the few methods that allow for non-randomized treatment/exposure appropriately handle confounding individual characteristics, they do not offer a way to examine surrogate heterogeneity with respect to patient characteristics. In this paper, we propose a framework to assess surrogate heterogeneity in real-world, i.e., non-randomized, data and implement this framework using various meta-learners. Our approach allows us to quantify heterogeneity in surrogate strength with respect to patient characteristics while accommodating confounders through the use of flexible, off-the-shelf machine learning methods. In addition, we use our framework to identify individuals for whom the surrogate is a valid replacement of the primary outcome. We examine the performance of our methods via a simulation study and application to examine heterogeneity in the surrogacy of hemoglobin A1c as a surrogate for fasting plasma glucose.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimated RS(x) (solid lines) vs. true RS(x) (dashed lines) plotted against X1, the baseline covariate featuring heterogeneous surrogate strength in our simulations, with pointwise confidence bands (grey shading) obtained using bootstrapping. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    P., Thi \'e baut, R., and Parast, L

    Agniel, D., Hejblum, B. P., Thi \'e baut, R., and Parast, L. (2023). Doubly robust evaluation of high-dimensional surrogate markers. Biostatistics 24, 985--999

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    and Parast, L

    Agniel, D. and Parast, L. (2024). Robust evaluation of longitudinal surrogate markers with censored data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology qkae119,

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Andrews, R. M. and Didelez, V. (2021). Insights into the cross-world independence assumption of causal mediation analysis. Epidemiology 32, 209--219

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    and Imbens, G

    Athey, S. and Imbens, G. (2016). Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 7353--7360

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Athey, S., Tibshirani, J., and Wager, S. (2019). Generalized random forests. Annals of Statistics 47, 1148--1178

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    and Wager, S

    Athey, S. and Wager, S. (2019). Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: An application. Observational studies 5, 37--51

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    and Hochberg, Y

    Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57, 289--300

    work page 1995

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Boyko, E. J. (2013). Observational research—opportunities and limitations. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications 27, 642--648

    2013

  2. [10]

    Bycott, P. W. and Taylor, J. M. (1998). An evaluation of a measure of the proportion of the treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Controlled Clinical Trials 19, 555--568

    1998

  3. [11]

    Caron, A., Baio, G., and Manolopoulou, I. (2022). Estimating individual treatment effects using non-parametric regression models: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 185, 1115--1149

    2022

  4. [12]

    United states centers for disease control and prevention national health and nutrition examination survey data ( A ugust 2021-- A ugust 2023)

    C D C (2025). United states centers for disease control and prevention national health and nutrition examination survey data ( A ugust 2021-- A ugust 2023). Accessed: 2025-02-05

    2025

  5. [13]

    and Weiskirchen, R

    Chandrasekaran, P. and Weiskirchen, R. (2024). The role of obesity in type 2 diabetes mellitus—an overview. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, 1882

    2024

  6. [14]

    Chen, H., Geng, Z., and Jia, J. (2007). Criteria for surrogate end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 69, 919--932

    2007

  7. [15]

    Collaboration, E. R. F. (2011). Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. New England Journal of Medicine 364, 829--841

    2011

  8. [16]

    Fleming, T. R. (1994). Surrogate markers in AIDS and cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine 13, 1423--1435

    1994

  9. [17]

    S., Graubard, B

    Freedman, L. S., Graubard, B. I., and Schatzkin, A. (1992). Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in medicine 11, 167--178

    1992

  10. [18]

    Gerstein, H. (1997). Glucose: a continuous risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Diabetic Medicine 14, S25--S31

    1997

  11. [19]

    Han, L., Wang, X., and Cai, T. (2022). Identifying surrogate markers in real-world comparative effectiveness research. Statistics in Medicine 41, 5290--5304

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hsiao, E., Tian, L., and Parast, L. (2025). Avoiding the surrogate paradox: An empirical framework for assessing assumptions. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, In press

    2025

  13. [21]

    Imai, K., Keele, L., and Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological methods 15, 309

    2010

  14. [22]

    Katz, R. (2004). Biomarkers and surrogate markers: an fda perspective. NeuroRx 1, 189--195

    2004

  15. [23]

    M., Steyerberg, E., and Van Klaveren, D

    Kent, D. M., Steyerberg, E., and Van Klaveren, D. (2018). Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects. BMJ 363,

    2018

  16. [24]

    Knowlton, R. (2025). cohetsurr: Assessing Complex Heterogeneity in Surrogacy . R package version 2.0

    2025

  17. [25]

    and Parast, L

    Knowlton, R. and Parast, L. (2025). Efficient testing using surrogate information. Under Review

    2025

  18. [26]

    Knowlton, R., Tian, L., and Parast, L. (2025). A general framework to assess complex heterogeneity in the strength of a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 44, e70001

    2025

  19. [27]

    Kosorok, M. R. and Fleming, T. R. (1993). Using surrogate failure time data to increase cost effectiveness in clinical trials. Biometrika 80, 823--833

    1993

  20. [28]

    R., Sekhon, J

    K \"u nzel, S. R., Sekhon, J. S., Bickel, P. J., and Yu, B. (2019). Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 4156--4165

    2019

  21. [29]

    Lazar, M. A. (2005). How obesity causes diabetes: not a tall tale. Science 307, 373--375

    2005

  22. [30]

    B., Solomon, D

    Li, Y., Mathur, M. B., Solomon, D. H., Ridker, P. M., Glynn, R. J., and Yoshida, K. (2023). Effect measure modification by covariates in mediation: extending regression-based causal mediation analysis. Epidemiology 34, 661--672

    2023

  23. [31]

    Lin, D., Fleming, T., and De Gruttola, V. (1997). Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 16, 1515--1527

    1997

  24. [32]

    Meinshausen, N. (2007). Relaxed lasso. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 52, 374--393

    2007

  25. [33]

    and Pearl, J

    Mueller, S. and Pearl, J. (2023). Personalized decision making--a conceptual introduction. Journal of Causal Inference 11, 20220050

    2023

  26. [34]

    Newey, W. K. and McFadden, D. (1994). Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. Handbook of Econometrics 4, 2111--2245

    1994

  27. [35]

    Parast, L., Cai, T., and Tian, L. (2023a). Testing for heterogeneity in the utility of a surrogate marker. Biometrics 79, 799--810

    2023

  28. [36]

    Parast, L., Cai, T., and Tian, L. (2023b). Using a surrogate with heterogeneous utility to test for a treatment effect. Statistics in Medicine 42, 68--88

    2023

  29. [37]

    Preacher, K. J. and Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological methods 16, 93

    2011

  30. [38]

    Pryseley, A., Tilahun, A., Alonso, A., and Molenberghs, G. (2010). Using earlier measures in a longitudinal sequence as a potential surrogate for a later one. Computational statistics & data analysis 54, 1342--1354

    2010

  31. [39]

    and Wang, L

    Qin, X. and Wang, L. (2023). Causal moderated mediation analysis: Methods and software. Behavior Research Methods pages 1--21

    2023

  32. [40]

    K., Elliott, M

    Roberts, E. K., Elliott, M. R., and Taylor, J. M. (2021). Incorporating baseline covariates to validate surrogate endpoints with a constant biomarker under control arm. Statistics in Medicine 40, 6605--6618

    2021

  33. [41]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. (2005). Observational study. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science 3, 1451--1462

    2005

  34. [42]

    Stijven, F., Alonso, A., and Molenberghs, G. (2024). Proportion of treatment effect explained: An overview of interpretations. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 33, 1278--1296

    2024

  35. [43]

    Tao, R., Zeng, D., and Lin, D.-Y. (2017). Efficient semiparametric inference under two-phase sampling, with applications to genetic association studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association 112, 1468--1476

    2017

  36. [44]

    Tibshirani, J., Athey, S., Friedberg, R., Hadad, V., Hirshberg, D., Wager, S., and Zhou, E. (2023). grf: Generalized Random Forests . R package version 2.3.0

    2023

  37. [45]

    and Linero, A

    Ting, A. and Linero, A. R. (2023). Estimating heterogeneous causal mediation effects with bayesian decision tree ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01620

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J., Polley, E

    Van der Laan, M. J., Polley, E. C., and Hubbard, A. E. (2007). Super learner. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology 6,

    2007

  39. [47]

    van der Laan, M. J. and Rose, S. (2011). Targeted Learning . Springer

    2011

  40. [48]

    van der Vaart, A. W. (1998). Asymptotic Statistics . Cambridge University Press

    1998

  41. [49]

    VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Surrogate measures and consistent surrogates. Biometrics 69, 561--565

    2013

  42. [50]

    and Athey, S

    Wager, S. and Athey, S. (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 113, 1228--1242

    2018

  43. [51]

    and Taylor, J

    Wang, Y. and Taylor, J. M. (2002). A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 58, 803--812

    2002

  44. [52]

    Wood, S. N. (2000). Modelling and smoothing parameter estimation with multiple quadratic penalties. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 62, 413--428

    2000

  45. [53]

    Wood, S. N. (2004). Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99, 673--686

    2004

  46. [54]

    Wood, S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 73, 3--36

    2011

  47. [55]

    Wood, S. N. (2017). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R . chapman and hall/CRC

    2017

  48. [56]

    Wood, S. N. (2023). mgcv: Mixed GAM Computation Vehicle with Automatic Smoothness Estimation . R package version 1.8-42

    2023

  49. [57]

    N., Pya, N., and S \"a fken, B

    Wood, S. N., Pya, N., and S \"a fken, B. (2016). Smoothing parameter and model selection for general smooth models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 111, 1548--1563

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.