Toward Precision in Critical Care Research: Methods for Observational and Interventional Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical care trials evaluate the effect of interventions in patients with diverse personal histories and causes of illness, often under the umbrella of heterogeneous clinical syndromes, such as sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Given this variation, it is reasonable to expect that the effect of treatment on outcomes may differ for individuals with variable characteristics. However, in randomized controlled trials, efficacy is typically assessed by the average treatment effect (ATE), which quantifies the average effect of the intervention on the outcome in the study population. Importantly, the ATE may hide variations of the treatment's effect on a clinical outcome across levels of patient characteristics, which may erroneously lead to the conclusion that an intervention does not work overall when it may in fact benefit certain patients. In this review, we describe methodological approaches for assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), including expert-derived subgrouping, data-driven subgrouping, baseline risk modeling, treatment effect modeling, and individual treatment rule estimation. Next, we outline how insights from HTE analyses can be incorporated into the design of clinical trials. Finally, we propose a research agenda for advancing the field and bringing HTE approaches to the bedside.
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 | 0.390 | 0.581 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".