ArticleTrials2020
Machine learning analysis plans for randomised controlled trials: detecting treatment effect heterogeneity with strict control of type I error.
Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generalized framework for identifying meaningful heterogenous treatment effects in observational studies: A parametric data-adaptive G-computation approach.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- Exploring Machine Learning Classification of Movement Phases in Hemiparetic Stroke Patients: A Controlled EEG-tDCS Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- A Machine-Learning Approach for Estimating Subgroup- and Individual-Level Treatment Effects: An Illustration Using the 65 Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Predictive Modeling Identifies Total Bleeds at 12-Weeks Postswitch to N8-GP Prophylaxis as a Predictor of Treatment Response.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- LANDMark: an ensemble approach to the supervised selection of biomarkers in high-throughput sequencing data.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- The role of machine learning in clinical research: transforming the future of evidence generation.Trials · 2021Review
- Optimal individualized decision rules from a multi-arm trial: A comparison of methods and an application to tailoring inter-donation intervals among blood donors in the UK.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- Machine Learning for Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research (P-HEOR): Conceptual Review of Applications and Next Steps.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2020Article
- Extreme Consumers of Health Care: Patterns of Care Utilization in Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions Admitted to a Novel Integrated Clinic.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRetrospective exploratory analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) seeking to identify treatment effect heterogeneity (TEH) are prone to bias and false positives. Yet the desire to learn all we can from exhaustive data measurements on trial participants motivates the inclusion of such analyses within RCTs. Moreover, widespread advances in machine learning (ML) methods hold potential to utilise such data to identify subjects exhibiting heterogeneous treatment response.
methodsWe present a novel analysis strategy for detecting TEH in randomised data using ML methods, whilst ensuring proper control of the false positive discovery rate. Our approach uses random data partitioning with statistical or ML-based prediction on held-out data. This method can test for both crossover TEH (switch in optimal treatment) and non-crossover TEH (systematic variation in benefit across patients). The former is done via a two-sample hypothesis test measuring overall predictive performance. The latter is done via 'stacking' the ML predictors alongside a classical statistical model to formally test the added benefit of the ML algorithm. An adaptation of recent statistical theory allows for the construction of a valid aggregate p value. This testing strategy is independent of the choice of ML method.
resultsWe demonstrate our approach with a re-analysis of the SEAQUAMAT trial, which compared quinine to artesunate for the treatment of severe malaria in Asian adults. We find no evidence for any subgroup who would benefit from a change in treatment from the current standard of care, artesunate, but strong evidence for significant TEH within the artesunate treatment group. In particular, we find that artesunate provides a differential benefit to patients with high numbers of circulating ring stage parasites.
conclusionsML analysis plans using computational notebooks (documents linked to a programming language that capture the model parameter settings, data processing choices, and evaluation criteria) along with version control can improve the robustness and transparency of RCT exploratory analyses. A data-partitioning algorithm allows researchers to apply the latest ML techniques safe in the knowledge that any declared associations are statistically significant at a user-defined level.
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.