ArticleExperimental gerontology2026
Uncovering treatment effect heterogeneity in pragmatic gerontology trials.
Article in Experimental gerontology, 2026. 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
Detecting heterogeneity in treatment response enriches the interpretation of gerontologic trials. In aging research, estimating the intervention's effect on clinically meaningful outcomes poses analytical challenges when outcomes are truncated by death. For example, in the Whole Systems Demonstrator trial, a large cluster-randomized study evaluating telecare among older adults, the overall effect of the intervention on quality of life was found to be null. However, this marginal intervention estimate obscures potential heterogeneity of individuals responding to the intervention, particularly among those who survive to the end of follow-up. To explore this heterogeneity, we adopt a causal framework grounded in principal stratification, targeting the Survivor Average Causal Effect (SACE)-the treatment effect among "always-survivors," or those who would survive regardless of treatment assignment. We extend this framework using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), a nonparametric machine learning method, to flexibly model both latent principal strata and stratum-specific potential outcomes. This enables the estimation of the Conditional SACE (CSACE), allowing us to uncover variation in treatment effects across subgroups defined by baseline characteristics. Our analysis reveals that despite the null average effect, some subgroups experience distinct quality of life benefits (or lack thereof) from telecare, highlighting opportunities for more personalized intervention strategies. This study demonstrates how embedding machine learning methods, such as BART, within a principled causal inference framework can offer deeper insights into trial data with complex features including truncation by death and clustering-key considerations in analyzing pragmatic gerontology trials.
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.