MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130620033 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003143

A generalised model for individualising a treatment recommendation based on group-level evidence from randomised clinical trials

2013· article· en· W2130620033 on OpenAlexafffund
Maura Marcucci, John C. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsHarmMedicineRelative riskClinical trialRandomized controlled trialNumber needed to harmPlaceboNumber needed to treatConfidence intervalAlternative medicineInternal medicinePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials report group-level treatment effects. However, an individual patient confronting a treatment decision needs to know whether that person's expected treatment benefit will exceed the expected treatment harm. We describe a flexible model for individualising a treatment decision. It individualises group-level results from randomised trials using clinical prediction guides. METHODS: We constructed models that estimate the size of individualised absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the target outcome that is required to offset individualised absolute risk increase (ARI) for the treatment harm. Inputs to the model include estimates for the individualised predicted absolute treatment benefit and harm, and the relative value assigned by the patient to harm/benefit. A decision rule recommends treatment when the predicted benefit exceeds the predicted harm, value-adjusted. We also derived expressions for the maximum treatment harm, or the maximum relative value for harm/benefit, above which treatment would not be recommended. RESULTS: For the simpler model, including one kind of benefit and one kind of harm, the individualised ARR required to justify treatment was expressed as required ARRtarget(i)=ARIharm(i) × RVharm/target(i). A complex model was also developed, applicable to treatments causing multiple kinds of benefits and/or harms. We demonstrated the applicability of the models to treatments tested in superiority trials (either placebo or active control, either fixed harm or variable harm) and non-inferiority trials. CONCLUSIONS: Individualised treatment recommendations can be derived using a model that applies clinical prediction guides to the results of randomised trials in order to identify which individual patients are likely to derive a clinically important benefit from the treatment. The resulting individualised prediction-based recommendations require validation by comparison with strategies of treat all or treat none.

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.301
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.301
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.907
GPT teacher head0.657
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207