Guidance on individualized treatment rule estimation in high dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individualized treatment rules, cornerstones of precision medicine, inform patient treatment decisions with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes. These rules are generally unknown functions of patients' pre-treatment covariates, meaning they must be estimated from clinical or observational study data. Myriad methods have been developed to learn these rules, and these procedures are demonstrably successful in traditional asymptotic settings with moderate number of covariates. The finite-sample performance of these methods in high-dimensional covariate settings, which are increasingly the norm in modern clinical trials, has not been well characterized, however. We perform a comprehensive comparison of state-of-the-art individualized treatment rule estimators, assessing performance on the basis of the estimators' rule quality, interpretability, and computational efficiency. Sixteen data-generating processes with continuous outcomes and binary treatment assignments are considered, reflecting a diversity of randomized and observational studies. We summarize our findings and provide succinct advice to practitioners needing to estimate individualized treatment rules in high dimensions. Owing to individualized treatment rule estimators' poor interpretability, we propose a novel pre-treatment covariate filtering procedure based on recent work for uncovering treatment effect modifiers. We show that it improves estimators' rule quality and interpretability. All code is made publicly available, facilitating modifications and extensions to our simulation study.
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 | 0.037 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".