ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Clinical decision making under uncertainty: a bootstrapped counterfactual inference approach.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating medical digital twins for clinical decision support: beyond predictive accuracy.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Towards Trustworthy AI in Healthcare: Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation for Clinical Decision Support.Journal of personalized 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLearning policies for decision-making, such as recommending treatments in clinical settings, is important for enhancing clinical decision-support systems. However, the challenge lies in accurately evaluating and optimizing these policies for maximum efficacy. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on two key aspects of policy learning: evaluation and optimization.
methodWe develop counterfactual policy learning algorithms for practical clinical applications to suggest viable treatment for patients. We first design a bootstrap method for counterfactual assessment and enhancement of policies, aiming to diminish uncertainty in clinical decisions. Building on this, we introduce an innovative adversarial learning algorithm, inspired by bootstrap principles, to further advance policy optimization.
resultsThe efficacy of our algorithms was validated using both semi-synthetic and real-world clinical datasets. Our method outperforms baseline algorithms, reducing the variance in policy evaluation by 30% and the error rate by 25%. In policy optimization, it enhances the reward by 1% to 3%, highlighting the practical value of our approach in clinical decision-making.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the effectiveness of combining bootstrap and adversarial learning techniques in policy learning for clinical decision support. It not only enhances the accuracy and reliability of policy evaluation and optimization but also paves avenues for leveraging advanced counterfactual machine learning in healthcare.
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.