Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39987431›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Application of causal forests to randomised controlled trial data to identify heterogeneous treatment effects: a case study.

Eleanor Van Vogt, Anthony C Gordon, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Suzie Cro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Eleanor Van VogtImperial College London, London, UK.
Anthony C GordonImperial College London, London, UK.
Karla Diaz-Ordaz *University College London, London, UK.
Suzie Cro *Imperial College London, London, UK. s.cro@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

NIHR Advanced Fellowship NIHR300593NIHR Pre-doctoral Fellowship NIHR301098Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust - Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship 218554/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClassical approaches to subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to identify heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) involve testing the interaction between each pre-specified possible treatment effect modifier and the treatment effect. However, individual significant interactions may not always yield clinically actionable subgroups, particularly for continuous covariates. Non-parametric causal machine learning approaches are flexible alternatives for estimating HTEs across many possible treatment effect modifiers in a single analysis.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of the VANISH RCT, which compared the early use of vasopressin with norepinephrine on renal failure-free survival for patients with septic shock at 28 days. We used classical (separate tests for interaction with Bonferroni correction), data-adaptive (hierarchical lasso regression), and non-parametric causal machine learning (causal forest) methods to analyse HTEs for the primary outcome of being alive at 28 days. Causal forests comprise honest causal trees, which use sample splitting to determine tree splits and estimate treatment effects separately. The modal initial (root) splits of the causal forest were extracted, and the mean value was used as a threshold to partition the population into subgroups with different treatment effects.

resultsAll three models found evidence of HTE with serum potassium levels. Univariable logistic regression OR 0.435 (95%CI [0.270, 0.683]. p = 0.0004), hierarchical lasso logistic regression standardised OR: 0.604 (95% CI 0.259, 0.701), lambda = 0.0049. Hierarchical lasso kept the interaction between the treatment and serum potassium, sodium level, minimum temperature, platelet count and presence of ischemic heart disease. The causal forest approach found some evidence of HTE (p = 0.124). When extracting root splits, the modal split was on serum potassium (mean applied threshold of 4.68 mmol/L). When dividing the patient population into subgroups based on the mean initial root threshold, risk differences in being alive at 28 days were 0.069 (95%CI [-0.032, 0.169]) and - 0.257 (95%CI [-0.368, -0.146]) with serum potassium ≤ 4.68 and > 4.68 respectively.

conclusionsThe causal forest agreed with the data-adaptive and classical method of subgroup analysis in identifying HTE by serum potassium. Whilst classical and data-adaptive methods may identify sources of HTE, they do not immediately suggest subgroup splits which are clinically actionable. The extraction of root splits in causal forests is a novel approach to obtaining data-derived subgroups, to be further investigated.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNorepinephrineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShock, SepticFemaleHumansMalePotassiumTreatment Effect HeterogeneityTreatment OutcomeNorepinephrinePotassiumCausal inferenceCausal machine learningCritical careRandomised controlled trialSubgroup analysisTreatment effect heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID39987431
PMCPMC11846376

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.