Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34416832›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022

Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes.

Christopher Weyant, Margaret L Brandeau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Emulator-Based Bayesian Calibration of the CISNET Colorectal Cancer Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  3. Emulator-based Bayesian calibration of the CISNET colorectal cancer models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. When Is Mass Prophylaxis Cost-Effective for Epidemic Control? A Comparison of Decision Approaches.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  6. Metamodeling for Policy Simulations with Multivariate Outcomes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Christopher WeyantDepartment of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2609-9486
Margaret L BrandeauDepartment of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug AbuseR37DA015612 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DOUGLAS K OWENS · 2019 to 2026
$6.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R37 DA015612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalizing medical treatments based on patient-specific risks and preferences can improve patient health. However, models to support personalized treatment decisions are often complex and difficult to interpret, limiting their clinical application.

methodsWe present a new method, using machine learning to create meta-models, for simplifying complex models for personalizing medical treatment decisions. We consider simple interpretable models, interpretable ensemble models, and noninterpretable ensemble models. We use variable selection with a penalty for patient-specific risks and/or preferences that are difficult, risky, or costly to obtain. We interpret the meta-models to the extent permitted by their model architectures. We illustrate our method by applying it to simplify a previously developed model for personalized selection of antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia.

resultsThe best simplified interpretable, interpretable ensemble, and noninterpretable ensemble models contained at most half the number of patient-specific risks and preferences compared with the original model. The simplified models achieved 60.5% (95% credible interval [crI]: 55.2-65.4), 60.8% (95% crI: 55.5-65.7), and 83.8% (95% crI: 80.8-86.6), respectively, of the net health benefit of the original model (quality-adjusted life-years gained). Important variables in all models were similar and made intuitive sense. Computation time for the meta-models was orders of magnitude less than for the original model. LIMITATIONS: The simplified models share the limitations of the original model (e.g., potential biases).

conclusionsOur meta-modeling method is disease- and model- agnostic and can be used to simplify complex models for personalization, allowing for variable selection in addition to improved model interpretability and computational performance. Simplified models may be more likely to be adopted in clinical settings and can help improve equity in patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsSchizophreniaHumansMachine LearningOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAntipsychotic Agentsmedical decision makingmeta-modelpersonalized medicineschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID34416832
PMCPMC8858337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.