Reward ignorant modeling of dynamic treatment regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized medicine optimizes patient outcome by tailoring treatments to patient-level characteristics. This approach is formalized by dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs): decision rules that take patient information as input and output recommended treatment decisions. The DTR literature has seen the development of increasingly sophisticated causal inference techniques that attempt to address the limitations of our typically observational datasets. Often overlooked, however, is that in practice most patients may be expected to receive optimal or near-optimal treatment, and so the outcome used as part of a typical DTR analysis may provide limited information. In light of this, we propose considering a more standard analysis: ignore the outcome and elicit an optimal DTR by modeling the observed treatment as a function of relevant covariates. This offers a far simpler analysis and, in some settings, improved optimal treatment identification. To distinguish this approach from more traditional DTR analyses, we term it reward ignorant modeling, and also introduce the concept of multimethod analysis, whereby different analysis methods are used in settings with multiple treatment decisions. We demonstrate this concept through a variety of simulation studies, and through analysis of data from the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium, which also serve as motivation for this work.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".