Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39349718›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Uncovering individualised treatment effects for educational trials.

ZhiMin Xiao, Oliver Hauser, Charlie Kirkwood, Daniel Z Li, Tamsin Ford, Steve Higgins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

ZhiMin XiaoSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK. zhimin.xiao@essex.ac.uk.
Oliver HauserDepartment of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4PU, UK.
Charlie KirkwoodDepartment of Mathematics, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK.
Daniel Z LiDurham University Business School, Durham, DH1 3LB, UK.
Tamsin FordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0AH, UK.
Steve HigginsSchool of Education, Durham University, Durham, DH1 1TA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as "the gold standard" for testing the causal effects of school-based interventions. RCTs typically present the statistical significance of the average treatment effect (ATE), which captures the effect an intervention has had on average for a given population. However, key decisions in child health and education are often about individuals who may be very different from those averages. One way to identify heterogeneous treatment effects across different individuals, not captured by the ATE, is to conduct subgroup analyses. For example, free school meal (FSM) pupils as required for projects funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in England. These subgroup analyses, as we demonstrate in 48 EEF-funded RCTs involving over 200,000 students, are usually not standardised across studies and offer flexible degrees of freedom to researchers, potentially leading to mixed, if not misleading, results. Here, we develop and deploy an alternative to ATE and subgroup analysis, a machine-learning and regression-based framework to predict individualised treatment effects (ITEs). ITEs could show where an intervention worked, for which individuals, and to what extent. Our findings have implications for decision-makers in fields like education, healthcare, law, and clinical practices concerning children and adolescents.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentChildEnglandFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleSchoolsTreatment OutcomeCausal inferenceData scienceEvaluationFree school meal pupilsRCTSubgroup analysis

Identifiers

PMID39349718
PMCPMC11442981

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.