ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
Composite interaction tree for simultaneous learning of optimal individualized treatment rules and subgroups.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Simultaneous Feature Selection for Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimens.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Developing an individualized treatment rule for Veterans with major depressive disorder using electronic health records.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Article
- Controlling Cumulative Adverse Risk in Learning Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimens.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2024Article
- Synthesizing independent stagewise trials for optimal dynamic treatment regimes.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Treatment response heterogeneity has long been observed in patients affected by chronic diseases. Administering an individualized treatment rule (ITR) offers an opportunity to tailor treatment strategies according to patient-specific characteristics. Overly complex machine learning methods for estimating ITRs may produce treatment rules that have higher benefit but lack transparency and interpretability. In clinical practices, it is desirable to derive a simple and interpretable ITR while maintaining certain optimality that leads to improved benefit in subgroups of patients, if not on the overall sample. In this work, we propose a tree-based robust learning method to estimate optimal piecewise linear ITRs and identify subgroups of patients with a large benefit. We achieve these goals by simultaneously identifying qualitative and quantitative interactions through a tree model, referred to as the composite interaction tree (CITree). We show that it has improved performance compared to existing methods on both overall sample and subgroups via extensive simulation studies. Lastly, we fit CITree to Research Evaluating the Value of Augmenting Medication with Psychotherapy trial for treating patients with major depressive disorders, where we identified both qualitative and quantitative interactions and subgroups of patients with a large benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.