ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
M-Learning for Individual Treatment Rule With Survival Outcomes.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) tailor treatments to individuals based on their unique characteristics to optimize clinical outcomes and resource allocation. Current approaches use outcome modeling or propensity score weighting to control confounding in complex medical data. To avoid model misspecification and the impact of extreme weights, matched-learning (M-learning) was recently proposed for continuous outcomes. In this paper, we expand the existing M-learning methodology to estimate optimal ITRs under right-censored data, as time-to-event outcomes are common in medical research. We construct matched sets for individuals by comparing observed times and incorporate an inverse probability censoring weight into the value function to handle censored observations. Additionally, we consider a full matching design as a possible alternative to the matching with replacement in M-learning. We demonstrate that the proposed value function is unbiased for the true value function without censoring. To gain insight into the empirical performance, we conduct an extensive simulation study that compares M-learning with two matching designs and a weighed learning approach. Results are evaluated based on winning probabilities and estimated values. The simulation reveals that all methods are generally fine in the absence of unmeasured confounders, and different methods show somewhat different performances under various scenarios. But their performance drops substantially in the presence of unmeasured confounders. Finally, we apply these methods to estimate optimal ITRs for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) complications from an electronic medical record database, where full matching design shows slightly better performance.
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.