Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34335111›Full record

ArticleJournal of machine learning research : JMLR2020

Near-optimal Individualized Treatment Recommendations.

Haomiao Meng, Ying-Qi Zhao, Haoda Fu, Xingye Qiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of machine learning research : JMLR, 2020. 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

4 authors.

Haomiao MengDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA.
Ying-Qi ZhaoPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.
Haoda FuEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA.
Xingye QiaoDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA.

Funding

Statistical methods for healthcare in complex patients with diabetesR01DK108073 · NIDDK · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ZHAO, YINGQI · 2015 to 2019
$1.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK108073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The individualized treatment recommendation (ITR) is an important analytic framework for precision medicine. The goal of ITR is to assign the best treatments to patients based on their individual characteristics. From the machine learning perspective, the solution to the ITR problem can be formulated as a weighted classification problem to maximize the mean benefit from the recommended treatments given patients' characteristics. Several ITR methods have been proposed in both the binary setting and the multicategory setting. In practice, one may prefer a more flexible recommendation that includes multiple treatment options. This motivates us to develop methods to obtain a set of near-optimal individualized treatment recommendations alternative to each other, called alternative individualized treatment recommendations (A-ITR). We propose two methods to estimate the optimal A-ITR within the outcome weighted learning (OWL) framework. Simulation studies and a real data analysis for Type 2 diabetic patients with injectable antidiabetic treatments are conducted to show the usefulness of the proposed A-ITR framework. We also show the consistency of these methods and obtain an upper bound for the risk between the theoretically optimal recommendation and the estimated one. An R package aitr has been developed, found at https://github.com/menghaomiao/aitr.

Indexed as

angle-based classificationindividualized treatment recommendationreproducing kernel Hilbert spaceset-valued classificationstatistical learning theory

Identifiers

PMID34335111
PMCPMC8324003

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.