Evaluating marker‐guided treatment selection strategies
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
This article considers a general setting with multiple markers and proposes a two‐step robust method to derive individualized treatment rules and evaluates their values and proposes procedures for comparing different ITRs, which can be used to quantify the incremental value of new markers in improving treatment selection.Abstract:
A potential venue to improve healthcare efficiency is to effectively tailor individualized treatment strategies by incorporating patient level predictor information such as environmental exposure, biological, and genetic marker measurements. Many useful statistical methods for deriving individualized treatment rules (ITR) have become available in recent years. Prior to adopting any ITR in clinical practice, it is crucial to evaluate its value in improving patient outcomes. Existing methods for quantifying such values mainly consider either a single marker or semi-parametric methods that are subject to bias under model misspecification. In this paper, we consider a general setting with multiple markers and propose a two-step robust method to derive ITRs and evaluate their values. We also propose procedures for comparing different ITRs, which can be used to quantify the incremental value of new markers in improving treatment selection. While working models are used in step I to approximate optimal ITRs, we add a layer of calibration to guard against model misspecification and further assess the value of the ITR non-parametrically, which ensures the validity of the inference. To account for the sampling variability of the estimated rules and their corresponding values, we propose a resampling procedure to provide valid confidence intervals for the value functions as well as for the incremental value of new markers for treatment selection. Our proposals are examined through extensive simulation studies and illustrated with the data from a clinical trial that studies the effects of two drug combinations on HIV-1 infected patients.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Quantile-Optimal Treatment Regimes
TL;DR: This article proposes an alternative formulation of the estimator as a solution of an optimization problem with an estimated nuisance parameter, and derives theory involving a nonstandard convergence rate and a nonnormal limiting distribution of the quantile-optimal treatment regime.
Journal ArticleDOI
On Estimation of Optimal Treatment Regimes For Maximizing t-Year Survival Probability.
TL;DR: This work proposes two nonparametric estimators for the survival function of patients following a given treatment regime involving one or more decisions, i.e., the so-called value, and estimates an optimal regime by maximizing these estimator for the value over a prespecified class of regimes.
Journal ArticleDOI
Concordance-assisted learning for estimating optimal individualized treatment regimes
TL;DR: A new concordance-assisted learning for estimating optimal individualized treatment regimes and a doubly robust estimator of parameters in the prescriptive index is developed under a class of monotonic index models.
Journal ArticleDOI
Decomposing Treatment Effect Variation
TL;DR: In this article, treatment effect variation in randomized experiments has become essential for going beyond the "black box" of the average treatment effect and characterizing treatment effect variations in randomized trials.
Journal ArticleDOI
Two-Sample Tests for High-Dimensional Linear Regression with an Application to Detecting Interactions.
Yin Xia,Tianxi Cai,T. Tony Cai +2 more
TL;DR: A procedure for testing the equality of the two regression vectors globally is proposed and shown to be particularly powerful against sparse alternatives, and a multiple testing procedure for identifying unequal coordinates while controlling the false discovery rate and false discovery proportion is introduced.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies.
TL;DR: A discussion of matching, randomization, random sampling, and other methods of controlling extraneous variation is presented in this paper, where the objective is to specify the benefits of randomization in estimating causal effects of treatments.
Journal ArticleDOI
Statistics and Causal Inference
TL;DR: In this article, the authors use a particular model for causal inference (Holland and Rubin 1983; Rubin 1974) to critique the discussions of other writers on causation and causal inference.
Journal ArticleDOI
A Controlled Trial of Two Nucleoside Analogues plus Indinavir in Persons with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and CD4 Cell Counts of 200 per Cubic Millimeter or Less
Scott M. Hammer,Kathleen Squires,Michael Hughes,Michael Hughes,Janet M. Grimes,Lisa M. Demeter,Judith S. Currier,Joseph J. Eron,Judith Feinberg,Henry H. Balfour,Lawrence Deyton,Chodakewitz Jeffrey A,Margaret A. Fischl,John P. Phair,William Spreen,Louise Pedneault,Bach-Yen Nguyen,Jon C. Cook +17 more
TL;DR: In this article, the efficacy and safety of adding a protease inhibitor to two nucleoside analogues to treat human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection are not clear.
Journal ArticleDOI
Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization
TL;DR: In this article, the authors make clear the role of mechanisms that sample experimental units, assign treatments and record data, and that unless these mechanisms are ignorable, the Bayesian must model them in the data analysis and confront inferences for causal effects that are sensitive to the specification of the prior distribution of the data.
Journal ArticleDOI
A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect
TL;DR: A graphical approach to the identification and computation of causal parameters in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods is offered and an adverse effect of arsenic exposure on all-cause and lung cancer mortality which standard methods fail to detect is found.