ArticleStatistics in medicine2024
Validation of predicted individual treatment effects in out of sample respondents.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Models for Functional Outcomes in Spinal Cord Injury: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Accelerating precision exercise medicine in cancer patients using pooled individual patient data: POLARIS experience.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Measuring the Performance of Survival Models to Personalize Treatment Choices.Statistics in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personalized medicine promises the ability to improve patient outcomes by tailoring treatment recommendations to the likelihood that any given patient will respond well to a given treatment. It is important that predictions of treatment response be validated and replicated in independent data to support their use in clinical practice. In this paper, we propose and test an approach for validating predictions of individual treatment effects with continuous outcomes across samples that uses matching in a test (validation) sample to match individuals in the treatment and control arms based on their predicted treatment response and their predicted response under control. To examine the proposed validation approach, we conducted simulations where test data is generated from either an identical, similar, or unrelated process to the training data. We also examined the impact of nuisance variables. To demonstrate the use of this validation procedure in the context of predicting individual treatment effects in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, we apply our validation procedure using data from a clinical trial of combined behavioral and pharmacotherapy treatments. We find that the validation algorithm accurately confirms validation and lack of validation, and also provides insights into cases where test data were generated under similar, but not identical conditions. We also show that the presence of nuisance variables detrimentally impacts algorithm performance, which can be partially reduced though the use of variable selection methods. An advantage of the approach is that it can be widely applied to different predictive methods.
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.