Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41437932›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2025

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects for general responses.

Zijun Gao, Trevor Hastie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Zijun GaoDepartment of Data Sciences and Operations, Marshall Business School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4863-1656
Trevor HastieDepartment of Statistics and Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.

Funding

New Statistical Methods for Medical Signals and ImagesR01EB001988 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI JOHNSTONE, IAIN M · 2003 to 2018
$6.1M
New Statistical Methods for Medical Signals and ImagesR01GM134483 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Iain M Johnstone · 2019 to 2026
$3.9M
National Science Foundation DMS 2013736National Science Foundation IIS 1837931NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001988NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM134483NIH HHS 5R01 EB 001988-21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heterogeneous treatment effect models allow us to compare treatments at subgroup levels and are becoming increasingly popular in applications such as personalized medicine, advertising, and education. Regardless of the type of responses (continuous, binary, count, survival), most causal estimands focus on the differences between the treatment and control conditional means. In this paper, we propose an alternative estimand, DINA-the DIfference in NAtural parameters-to quantify heterogeneous treatment effects motivated by exponential families and the Cox model. Despite the type of responses, DINA is both convenient and more practical for modeling the influence of covariates on the treatment effect. Additionally, we introduce a meta-algorithm for DINA, enabling practitioners to utilize powerful off-the-shelf machine learning tools for the estimation of nuisance functions. This meta-algorithm is also statistically robust to errors in the nuisance function estimation. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method in combination with various machine learning base-learners on both simulated and real datasets.

Indexed as

BiometryModels, StatisticalAlgorithmsComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMachine LearningProportional Hazards ModelsTreatment Effect HeterogeneityTreatment Outcomecausal inferenceCox modelexponential familyheterogeneous treatment effectNeyman orthogonal score

Identifiers

PMID41437932
PMCPMC12728347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.