Using Machine Learning to Improve Control for Confounding in the Dynamic Weighted Ordinary Least Squares Estimator of Optimal Adaptive Treatment Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Estimating optimal adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs) can be done in several ways, including dynamic weighted ordinary least squares (dWOLS). This approach is doubly robust as it requires modeling both the treatment and the response, but only one of those models needs to be correctly specified to obtain a consistent estimator. For estimating an average treatment effect, doubly robust methods have been shown to combine better with machine learning methods than alternatives. However, the use of machine learning within dWOLS has not yet been investigated. Using simulation studies, we evaluate and compare the performance of the dWOLS estimator when the treatment probability is estimated either using machine learning algorithms or a logistic regression model. We further investigate the use of an adaptive ‐out‐of‐ bootstrap method for producing inferences. SuperLearner performed at least as well as logistic regression in terms of bias and variance in scenarios with simple data‐generating models and often had improved performance in more complex scenarios. Moreover, the ‐out‐of‐ bootstrap produced confidence intervals with nominal coverage probabilities for parameters that were estimated with low bias. We also apply our proposed approach to the data from a breast cancer registry in Québec, Canada, to estimate an optimal ATS to personalize the use of hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients. Our method is implemented in the R software and available on GitHub https://github.com/kosstre20/MachineLearningToControlConfoundingPersonalizedMedicine.git . We recommend routine use of machine learning to model treatment within dWOLS, at least as a sensitivity analysis for the point estimates.
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 | 0.033 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".