ArticleScientific reports2025
Obtaining personalized predictions from a randomized controlled trial on Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to infer patient level outcomes from population level randomized control trials (RCTs). In this pursuit, we utilize the recently proposed synthetic nearest neighbors (SNN) estimator. At its core, SNN leverages information across patients to impute missing data associated with each patient of interest. We focus on two types of missing data: (i) unrecorded outcomes from discontinuing the assigned treatments and (ii) unobserved outcomes associated with unassigned treatments. Data imputation in the former powers and de-biases RCTs, while data imputation in the latter simulates "synthetic RCTs" to predict the outcomes for each patient under every treatment. The SNN estimator is interpretable, transparent, and causally justified under a broad class of missing data scenarios. Relative to several standard methods, we empirically find that SNN performs well for the above two applications using Phase 3 clinical trial data on patients with Alzheimer's Disease. Our findings directly suggest that SNN can tackle a current pain point within the clinical trial workflow on patient dropouts and serve as a new tool towards the development of precision medicine. Building on our insights, we discuss how SNN can further generalize to real-world applications.
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.