Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39463820›Full record

ArticleThe annals of applied statistics2023

A RELUCTANT ADDITIVE MODEL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETABLE NONLINEAR INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT RULES.

Jacob M Maronge, Jared D Huling, Guanhua Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The annals of applied statistics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Jacob M MarongeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Jared D HulingDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota.
Guanhua ChenDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Funding

Outcome Dependent Sampling Studies of Longitudinal Data: Design and AnalysisR01HL094786 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Jonathan Scott Schildcrout · 2009 to 2026
$6.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL094786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) for treatment recommendation is an important topic for precision medicine as not all beneficial treatments work well for all individuals. Interpretability is a desirable property of ITRs, as it helps practitioners make sense of treatment decisions, yet there is a need for ITRs to be flexible to effectively model complex biomedical data for treatment decision making. Many ITR approaches either focus on linear ITRs, which may perform poorly when true optimal ITRs are nonlinear, or black-box nonlinear ITRs, which may be hard to interpret and can be overly complex. This dilemma indicates a tension between interpretability and accuracy of treatment decisions. Here we propose an additive model-based nonlinear ITR learning method that balances interpretability and flexibility of the ITR. Our approach aims to strike this balance by allowing both linear and nonlinear terms of the covariates in the final ITR. Our approach is parsimonious in that the nonlinear term is included in the final ITR only when it substantially improves the ITR performance. To prevent overfitting, we combine crossfitting and a specialized information criterion for model selection. Through extensive simulations we show that our methods are data-adaptive to the degree of nonlinearity and can favorably balance ITR interpretability and flexibility. We further demonstrate the robust performance of our methods with an application to a cancer drug sensitive study.

Indexed as

Individualized treatment rulesprecision medicinereluctant additive models

Identifiers

PMID39463820
PMCPMC11500633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.