Tools for the Precision Medicine Era: How to Develop Highly Personalized Treatment Recommendations From Cohort and Registry Data Using Q-Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Q-learning is a method of reinforcement learning that employs backwards stagewise estimation to identify sequences of actions that maximize some long-term reward. The method can be applied to sequential multiple-assignment randomized trials to develop personalized adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs)-longitudinal practice guidelines highly tailored to time-varying attributes of individual patients. Sometimes, the basis for choosing which ATSs to include in a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial (or randomized controlled trial) may be inadequate. Nonrandomized data sources may inform the initial design of ATSs, which could later be prospectively validated. In this paper, we illustrate challenges involved in using nonrandomized data for this purpose with a case study from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry (1995-2007) aimed at 1) determining whether the sequence of therapeutic classes used in graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis and in refractory graft-versus-host disease is associated with improved survival and 2) identifying donor and patient factors with which to guide individualized immunosuppressant selections over time. We discuss how to communicate the potential benefit derived from following an ATS at the population and subgroup levels and how to evaluate its robustness to modeling assumptions. This worked example may serve as a model for developing ATSs from registries and cohorts in oncology and other fields requiring sequential treatment decisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.275 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".