Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104931›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2022

Contrast weighted learning for robust optimal treatment rule estimation.

Xiaohan Guo, Ai Ni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

Xiaohan GuoDivision of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Ai NiDivision of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0003-3002-3556

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized medicine aims to tailor medical decisions based on patient-specific characteristics. Advances in data capturing techniques such as electronic health records dramatically increase the availability of comprehensive patient profiles, promoting the rapid development of optimal treatment rule (OTR) estimation methods. An archetypal OTR estimation approach is the outcome weighted learning, where OTR is determined under a weighted classification framework with clinical outcomes as the weights. Although outcome weighted learning has been extensively studied and extended, existing methods are susceptible to irregularities of outcome distributions such as outliers and heavy tails. Methods that involve modeling of the outcome are also sensitive to model misspecification. We propose a contrast weighted learning (CWL) framework that exploits the flexibility and robustness of contrast functions to enable robust OTR estimation for a wide range of clinical outcomes. The novel value function in CWL only depends on the pairwise contrast of clinical outcomes between patients irrespective of their distributional features and supports. The Fisher consistency and convergence rate of the estimated decision rule via CWL are established. We illustrate the superiority of the proposed method under finite samples using comprehensive simulation studies with ill-distributed continuous outcomes and ordinal outcomes. We apply the CWL method to two datasets from clinical trials on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and COVID-19 to demonstrate its real-world application.

Indexed as

COVID-19Models, StatisticalAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansPrecision Medicinecontrast functionindividualized treatment ruleordinal outcomepersonalized medicinerobustness

Identifiers

PMID36104931
PMCPMC9826186

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.