ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025
Multi-study R-learner for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects across studies using statistical machine learning.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Distributed fusion R-learner of heterogeneous treatment effect using distributed medicaid data.Biometrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Heterogeneous treatment effect (HTE) refers to the nonrandom, explainable variation in treatment effects for individuals in a population. HTE estimation is central to precision medicine, where accurate effect estimates can inform personalized treatment decisions. In practice, patients can present with covariate profiles that overlap with multiple studies, raising the challenge of optimally informing treatment decisions in a multi-study setting. We proposed a flexible statistical machine learning (ML) framework, the multi-study $ R $-learner, that leverages multiple studies to estimate the HTE. Existing multi-study approaches often assume that study-specific (i) conditional average treatment effect (CATE), (ii) expected potential outcome under no treatment given covariates, and (iii) treatment assignment mechanism are identical across studies, but these assumptions may not hold in practice due to differences in study populations, protocols, or designs. To this end, we developed our framework to directly account for these three types of between-study heterogeneity. It builds upon recent advances in cross-study learning and uses a data-adaptive objective function to combine cross-study estimates of nuisance functions with study-specific CATEs via membership probabilities, which enable information to be borrowed across studies. The multi-study $ R $-learner extends the $ R $-learner to the multi-study setting and is flexible in its ability to incorporate ML techniques. In the series estimation framework, we showed that the proposed method is asymptotically normal and more efficient than the $ R $-learner when there is between-study heterogeneity in the treatment assignment mechanisms. We illustrated using cancer data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies that the multi-study $ R $-learner performs favorably in the presence of between-study heterogeneity.
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.