Semiparametric Bayesian inference for optimal dynamic treatment regimes via dynamic marginal structural models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable statistical work done on dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) is in the frequentist paradigm, but Bayesian methods may have much to offer in this setting as they allow for the appropriate representation and propagation of uncertainty, including at the individual level. In this work, we extend the use of recently developed Bayesian methods for Marginal Structural Models to arrive at inference of DTRs. We do this (i) by linking the observational world with a world in which all patients are randomized to a DTR, thereby allowing for causal inference and then (ii) by maximizing a posterior predictive utility, where the posterior distribution has been obtained from nonparametric prior assumptions on the observational world data-generating process. Our approach relies on Bayesian semiparametric inference, where inference about a finite-dimensional parameter is made all while working within an infinite-dimensional space of distributions. We further study Bayesian inference of DTRs in the double robust setting by using posterior predictive inference and the nonparametric Bayesian bootstrap. The proposed methods allow for uncertainty quantification at the individual level, thereby enabling personalized decision-making. We examine the performance of these methods via simulation and demonstrate their utility by exploring whether to adapt HIV therapy to a measure of patients' liver health, in order to minimize liver scarring.
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 | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".