MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996851858 · doi:10.1214/14-ejs920

Dynamic treatment regimes: Technical challenges and applications

2014· article· en· W1996851858 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric B. Laber, Daniel J. Lizotte, Min Qian, William E. Pelham, Susan A. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Journal of Statistics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Mental HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Drug AbuseUniversity of MichiganNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEstimatorOperationalizationInferenceMathematicsVariety (cybernetics)Decision ruleMachine learningEconometricsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic treatment regimes are of growing interest across the clinical sciences because these regimes provide one way to operationalize and thus inform sequential personalized clinical decision making. Formally, a dynamic treatment regime is a sequence of decision rules, one per stage of clinical intervention. Each decision rule maps up-to-date patient information to a recommended treatment. We briefly review a variety of approaches for using data to construct the decision rules. We then review a critical inferential challenge that results from nonregularity, which often arises in this area. In particular, nonregularity arises in inference for parameters in the optimal dynamic treatment regime; the asymptotic, limiting, distribution of estimators are sensitive to local perturbations. We propose and evaluate a locally consistent Adaptive Confidence Interval (ACI) for the parameters of the optimal dynamic treatment regime. We use data from the Adaptive Pharmacological and Behavioral Treatments for Children with ADHD Trial as an illustrative example. We conclude by highlighting and discussing emerging theoretical problems in this area.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations170
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207