ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
Risk controlled decision trees and random forests for precision Medicine.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- MOSIC: Model-Agnostic Optimal Subgroup Identification with Multi-Constraint for Improved Reliability.KDD : proceedings. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates: a pioneering insight.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- A predictive model for lung cancer screening nonadherence in a community setting health-care network.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- CAPITAL: Optimal subgroup identification via constrained policy tree search.Statistics in medicine · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Statistical methods generating individualized treatment rules (ITRs) often focus on maximizing expected benefit, but these rules may expose patients to excess risk. For instance, aggressive treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) with insulin therapies may result in an ITR which controls blood glucose levels but increases rates of hypoglycemia, diminishing the appeal of the ITR. This work proposes two methods to identify risk-controlled ITRs (rcITR), a class of ITR which maximizes a benefit while controlling risk at a prespecified threshold. A novel penalized recursive partitioning algorithm is developed which optimizes an unconstrained, penalized value function. The final rule is a risk-controlled decision tree (rcDT) that is easily interpretable. A natural extension of the rcDT model, risk controlled random forests (rcRF), is also proposed. Simulation studies demonstrate the robustness of rcRF modeling. Three variable importance measures are proposed to further guide clinical decision-making. Both rcDT and rcRF procedures can be applied to data from randomized controlled trials or observational studies. An extensive simulation study interrogates the performance of the proposed methods. A data analysis of the DURABLE diabetes trial in which two therapeutics were compared is additionally presented. An R package implements the proposed methods ( https://github.com/kdoub5ha/rcITR).
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.