Differentially private outcome‐weighted learning for optimal dynamic treatment regime estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision medicine is a framework for developing evidence-based medical recommendations that seeks to determine the optimal sequence of treatments tailored to all of the relevant patient-level characteristics which are observable. Because precision medicine relies on highly sensitive, patient-level data, ensuring the privacy of participants is of great importance. Dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) provide one formalization of precision medicine in a longitudinal setting. Outcome-Weighted Learning (OWL) is a family of techniques for estimating optimal DTRs based on observational data. OWL techniques leverage support vector machine (SVM) classifiers in order to perform estimation. SVMs perform classification based on a set of influential points in the data known as support vectors. The classification rule produced by SVMs often requires direct access to the support vectors. Thus, releasing a treatment policy estimated with OWL requires the release of patient data for a subset of patients in the sample. As a result, the classification rules from SVMs constitute a severe privacy violation for those individuals whose data comprise the support vectors. This privacy violation is a major concern, particularly in light of the potentially highly sensitive medical data which are used in DTR estimation. Differential privacy has emerged as a mathematical framework for ensuring the privacy of individual-level data, with provable guarantees on the likelihood that individual characteristics can be determined by an adversary. We provide the first investigation of differential privacy in the context of DTRs and provide a differentially private OWL estimator, with theoretical results allowing us to quantify the cost of privacy in terms of the accuracy of the private estimators.
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 | 0.020 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".