Non-parametric individual treatment effect estimation for survival data with random forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Personalized medicine often relies on accurate estimation of a treatment effect for specific subjects. This estimation can be based on the subject's baseline covariates but additional complications arise for a time-to-event response subject to censoring. In this paper, the treatment effect is measured as the difference between the mean survival time of a treated subject and the mean survival time of a control subject. We propose a new random forest method for estimating the individual treatment effect with survival data. The random forest is formed by individual trees built with a splitting rule specifically designed to partition the data according to the individual treatment effect. For a new subject, the forest provides a set of similar subjects from the training dataset that can be used to compute an estimation of the individual treatment effect with any adequate method. RESULTS: The merits of the proposed method are investigated with a simulation study where it is compared to numerous competitors, including recent state-of-the-art methods. The results indicate that the proposed method has a very good and stable performance to estimate the individual treatment effects. Two examples of application with a colon cancer data and breast cancer data show that the proposed method can detect a treatment effect in a sub-population even when the overall effect is small or nonexistent. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The authors are working on an R package implementing the proposed method and it will be available soon. In the meantime, the code can be obtained from the first author at sami.tabib@hec.ca. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".