ReviewMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2024
Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment.
Review in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: Focus on Hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Precision Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: From Recurrence Prediction to Comparative Treatment Selection.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Individualized Treatment Rules Based on Cost-Effectiveness Criteria in Microsimulations.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based therapy compared with surgery in chronic pancreatitis: evidence from a multicentric cohort.Annals of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Predicting total healthcare demand using machine learning: separate and combined analysis of predisposing, enabling, and need factors.BMC health services research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent developments in causal inference and machine learning (ML) allow for the estimation of individualized treatment effects (ITEs), which reveal whether treatment effectiveness varies according to patients' observed covariates. ITEs can be used to stratify health policy decisions according to individual characteristics and potentially achieve greater population health. Little is known about the appropriateness of available ML methods for use in health technology assessment.
methodsIn this scoping review, we evaluate ML methods available for estimating ITEs, aiming to help practitioners assess their suitability in health technology assessment. We present a taxonomy of ML approaches, categorized by key challenges in health technology assessment using observational data, including handling time-varying confounding and time-to event data and quantifying uncertainty.
resultsWe found a wide range of algorithms for simpler settings with baseline confounding and continuous or binary outcomes. Not many ML algorithms can handle time-varying or unobserved confounding, and at the time of writing, no ML algorithm was capable of estimating ITEs for time-to-event outcomes while accounting for time-varying confounding. Many of the ML algorithms that estimate ITEs in longitudinal settings do not formally quantify uncertainty around the point estimates. LIMITATIONS: This scoping review may not cover all relevant ML methods and algorithms as they are continuously evolving.
conclusionsExisting ML methods available for ITE estimation are limited in handling important challenges posed by observational data when used for cost-effectiveness analysis, such as time-to-event outcomes, time-varying and hidden confounding, or the need to estimate sampling uncertainty around the estimates. IMPLICATIONS: ML methods are promising but need further development before they can be used to estimate ITEs for health technology assessments. HIGHLIGHTS: Estimating individualized treatment effects (ITEs) using observational data and machine learning (ML) can support personalized treatment advice and help deliver more customized information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health technologies.ML methods for ITE estimation are mostly designed for handling confounding at baseline but not time-varying or unobserved confounding. The few models that account for time-varying confounding are designed for continuous or binary outcomes, not time-to-event outcomes.Not all ML methods for estimating ITEs can quantify the uncertainty of their predictions.Future work on developing ML that addresses the concerns summarized in this review is needed before these methods can be widely used in clinical and health technology assessment-like decision making.
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.