MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124436614 · doi:10.1093/biomtc/ujaf174

Estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes with Gaussian process emulation

2025· article· en· W7124436614 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Rodriguez Duque, David A. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperparameter optimizationEstimatorEmulationGridGaussian processProcess (computing)Parametric statisticsNoise (video)GaussianEstimation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) is a key objective in precision medicine. Value search approaches, including (Bayesian) dynamic marginal structural models offer an attractive approach to estimation by mapping candidate regimes to their expected outcome. As parametric models for the expected outcomes may be mis-specified and lead to incorrect conclusions, a grid search over candidate DTRs has been proposed, but this may be computationally prohibitive and also subject to high uncertainty in the estimated value function. These inferential challenges can be addressed using Gaussian process ($\mathcal {GP}$) optimization methods with estimators for the causal effect of adherence to a specified DTR. We demonstrate how to identify optimal DTRs using this approach in a variety of settings, including when the value function is multi-modal and show that the $\mathcal {GP}$ modeling approach that recognizes noise in the estimated response surface leads to improved results as compared to a grid search approach. Further, we show that a grid search may not yield a robust solution and that it often utilizes information less efficiently than a $\mathcal {GP}$ approach. The proposed approach is used to understand tailoring of HIV therapy to optimize CD4 cell counts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207