MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154206493 · doi:10.1111/biom.12306

Doubly‐robust dynamic treatment regimen estimation via weighted least squares

2015· article· en· W2154206493 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael P. Wallace, Erica E. M. Moodie

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaThrasher Research Fund
KeywordsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Personalized medicinePrecision medicineData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMedicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized medicine is a rapidly expanding area of health research wherein patient level information is used to inform their treatment. Dynamic treatment regimens (DTRs) are a means of formalizing the sequence of treatment decisions that characterize personalized management plans. Identifying the DTR which optimizes expected patient outcome is of obvious interest and numerous methods have been proposed for this purpose. We present a new approach which builds on two established methods: Q-learning and G-estimation, offering the doubly robust property of the latter but with ease of implementation much more akin to the former. We outline the underlying theory, provide simulation studies that demonstrate the double-robustness and efficiency properties of our approach, and illustrate its use on data from the Promotion of Breastfeeding Intervention Trial.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations108
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207