Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42639845›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Nonparametric Assessment of the Calibration of Individualized Treatment Effects.

Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Jeroen Hoogland, Thomas P A Debray, John Petkau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mohsen SadatsafaviRespiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0419-7862
Jeroen HooglandDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2397-6052
Thomas P A DebraySmart Data Analysis and Statistics B.V., Utrecht, Germany.
John PetkauDepartment of Statistics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Funding

CIHR PHT 178432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important aspect of the performance of algorithms that predict individualized treatment effects (ITEs) is moderate calibration, that is, the average treatment effect among individuals with predicted treatment effect of z being equal to z. The assessment of moderate calibration is a challenging task on two fronts: counterfactual responses are unobserved, and quantifying the conditional response function for models that generate continuous predicted values requires regularization. Perhaps because of these challenges, there is currently no inferential method for the null hypothesis that an ITE model is moderately calibrated in a population. In this work, we propose nonparametric methods for the assessment of moderate calibration of ITE models for binary outcomes using data from a randomized trial. These methods simultaneously resolve both challenges, resulting in novel graphical, numerical, and inferential methods for the assessment of moderate calibration. The key idea is to formulate a stochastic process for the cumulative prediction errors that obeys a functional central limit theorem, enabling the use of the properties of Brownian motion for asymptotic inference. We propose two approaches to construct this process from a sample: a conditional approach that relies on predicted risks (often an auxiliary output of ITE models), and a marginal approach based on replacing the cumulative conditional expected value and variance terms with their marginal counterparts. Numerical simulations confirm the desirable properties of both approaches and their ability to detect miscalibration of different forms. We use a case study to provide suggestions on graphical presentation and the interpretation of results. Moderate calibration of predicted ITEs can be assessed without requiring regularization techniques or making assumptions about the functional form of treatment response. The accompanying cumulcalib R package implements this method ( https://cran.r-project.org/package=cumulcalib).

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPrecision MedicineAlgorithmsCalibrationComputer SimulationHumansPrediction AlgorithmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStatistics, NonparametricStochastic ProcessesTreatment Effect Heterogeneitycalibrationclinical prediction modelshypothesis testinginferencetreatment benefit

Identifiers

PMID42639845
PMCPMC13504708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.