ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Model selection for survival individualized treatment rules using the jackknife estimator.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prognostic modeling for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immuno-radiotherapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrecision medicine is an emerging field that involves the selection of treatments based on patients' individual prognostic data. It is formalized through the identification of individualized treatment rules (ITRs) that maximize a clinical outcome. When the type of outcome is time-to-event, the correct handling of censoring is crucial for estimating reliable optimal ITRs.
methodsWe propose a jackknife estimator of the value function to allow for right-censored data for a binary treatment. The jackknife estimator or leave-one-out-cross-validation approach can be used to estimate the value function and select optimal ITRs using existing machine learning methods. We address the issue of censoring in survival data by introducing an inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) adjustment in the expression of the jackknife estimator of the value function. In this paper, we estimate the optimal ITR by using random survival forest (RSF) and Cox proportional hazards model (COX). We use a Z-test to compare the optimal ITRs learned by RSF and COX with the zero-order model (or one-size-fits-all). Through simulation studies, we investigate the asymptotic properties and the performance of our proposed estimator under different censoring rates. We illustrate our proposed method on a phase III clinical trial of non-small cell lung cancer data.
resultsOur simulations show that COX outperforms RSF for small sample sizes. As sample sizes increase, the performance of RSF improves, in particular when the expected log failure time is not linear in the covariates. The estimator is fairly normally distributed across different combinations of simulation scenarios and censoring rates. When applied to a non-small-cell lung cancer data set, our method determines the zero-order model (ZOM) as the best performing model. This finding highlights the possibility that tailoring may not be needed for this cancer data set.
conclusionThe jackknife approach for estimating the value function in the presence of right-censored data shows satisfactory performance when there is small to moderate censoring. Winsorizing the upper and lower percentiles of the estimated survival weights for computing the IPCWs stabilizes the estimator.
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.