Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35758796›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2022

BITES: balanced individual treatment effect for survival data.

S Schrod, A Schäfer, S Solbrig, R Lohmayer, W Gronwald, P J Oefner, T Beißbarth, R Spang, H U Zacharias, M Altenbuchinger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Determining individual suitability for neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer patients through deep learning.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S SchrodDepartment of Medical Bioinformatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen 37077, Germany.
A SchäferDepartment of Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg 93051, Germany.
S SolbrigDepartment of Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg 93051, Germany.
R LohmayerLeibniz Institute for Immunotherapy, Regensburg 93053, Germany.
W GronwaldInstitute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg 93053, Germany.
P J OefnerInstitute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg 93053, Germany.
T BeißbarthDepartment of Medical Bioinformatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen 37077, Germany.
R SpangDepartment of Statistical Bioinformatics, Institute of Functional Genomics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg 93053, Germany.
H U ZachariasDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel 24105, Germany.
M AltenbuchingerDepartment of Medical Bioinformatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen 37077, Germany.
University of Regensburg · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEClinical Research Center Kiel · DELeibniz Association · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationEstimating the effects of interventions on patient outcome is one of the key aspects of personalized medicine. Their inference is often challenged by the fact that the training data comprises only the outcome for the administered treatment, and not for alternative treatments (the so-called counterfactual outcomes). Several methods were suggested for this scenario based on observational data, i.e. data where the intervention was not applied randomly, for both continuous and binary outcome variables. However, patient outcome is often recorded in terms of time-to-event data, comprising right-censored event times if an event does not occur within the observation period. Albeit their enormous importance, time-to-event data are rarely used for treatment optimization. We suggest an approach named BITES (Balanced Individual Treatment Effect for Survival data), which combines a treatment-specific semi-parametric Cox loss with a treatment-balanced deep neural network; i.e. we regularize differences between treated and non-treated patients using Integral Probability Metrics (IPM).

resultsWe show in simulation studies that this approach outperforms the state of the art. Furthermore, we demonstrate in an application to a cohort of breast cancer patients that hormone treatment can be optimized based on six routine parameters. We successfully validated this finding in an independent cohort. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: We provide BITES as an easy-to-use python implementation including scheduled hyper-parameter optimization (https://github.com/sschrod/BITES). The data underlying this article are available in the CRAN repository at https://rdrr.io/cran/survival/man/gbsg.html and https://rdrr.io/cran/survival/man/rotterdam.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerSoftwareComputer SimulationHumansPrecision MedicineProbability

Identifiers

PMID35758796
PMCPMC9235492
OpenAlexW4283645503

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.