ArticleBiometrics2020
On using electronic health records to improve optimal treatment rules in randomized trials.
Article in Biometrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Prediction of Long-Term Glycated Hemoglobin Response Change in Finnish Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Following Drug Initiation Using Evidence-Based Machine Learning Approaches.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Self-matched learning to construct treatment decision rules from electronic health records.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Multiple domain and multiple kernel outcome-weighted learning for estimating individualized treatment regimes.Journal of computational and graphical statistics : a joint publication of American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Interface Foundation of North America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) tailor medical treatments according to patient-specific characteristics in order to optimize patient outcomes. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used to infer valid ITRs using statistical and machine learning methods. However, RCTs are usually conducted under specific inclusion/exclusion criteria, thus limiting their generalizability to a broader patient population in real-world practice settings. Because electronic health records (EHRs) document treatment prescriptions in the real world, transferring information in EHRs to RCTs, if done appropriately, could potentially improve the performance of ITRs, in terms of precision and generalizability. In this work, we propose a new domain adaptation method to learn ITRs by incorporating information from EHRs. Unless we assume that there is no unmeasured confounding in EHRs, we cannot directly learn the optimal ITR from the combined EHR and RCT data. Instead, we first pretrain "super" features from EHRs that summarize physician treatment decisions and patient observed benefits in the real world, as these are likely to be informative of the optimal ITRs. We then augment the feature space of the RCT and learn the optimal ITRs by stratifying by super features using subjects enrolled in RCT. We adopt Q-learning and a modified matched-learning algorithm for estimation. We present heuristic justification of our method and conduct simulation studies to demonstrate the performance of super features. Finally, we apply our method to transfer information learned from EHRs of patients with type 2 diabetes to learn individualized insulin therapies from RCT data.
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.