Identifying treatment response subgroups in observational time-to-event data
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Examines methods for identifying subgroups in observational time-to-event data that exhibit differential treatment response
- Proposes a framework for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using flexible models and Bayesian techniques
- Demonstrates the approach on a case study of time-to-event data from a study of a cancer drug
Plain English Explanation
This paper looks at ways to identify subgroups of people in observational data who respond differently to a particular treatment over time. The researchers developed a framework that uses flexible statistical models and Bayesian techniques to estimate these differences in treatment effects across subgroups.
They tested their approach on data from a study of a cancer drug, where they were able to find subgroups of patients who responded better or worse to the treatment over time. This type of analysis can be useful for understanding which patients are most likely to benefit from a particular therapy, and tailoring treatment recommendations accordingly.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a framework for identifying treatment response subgroups in observational time-to-event data. The key components include:
- Using flexible regression models, such as Bayesian generalized additive models, to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects
- Employing Bayesian techniques to quantify uncertainty in the estimated subgroup treatment effects
- Developing an approach to identify subgroups that exhibit meaningful differences in treatment response
The authors demonstrate their framework on a case study of time-to-event data from a study of a cancer drug. They were able to identify subgroups of patients that showed differential treatment responses over time.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges some limitations, including the reliance on observational data, which can make it challenging to infer causal relationships. The authors also note that the identification of subgroups is sensitive to the choice of model and hyperparameters, and that further research is needed to develop more robust methods.
Additionally, the paper does not fully address the potential for subgroup-specific biases in observational data, such as differences in patient characteristics or unmeasured confounding factors. These issues could impact the validity of the subgroup findings and should be carefully considered.
Conclusion
This paper presents a promising framework for identifying subgroups in observational time-to-event data that exhibit differential treatment response. The approach leverages flexible statistical models and Bayesian techniques to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects. The case study on cancer drug data demonstrates the potential of this method to inform personalized treatment strategies.
However, the limitations of observational data and the sensitivity of subgroup identification warrant further research and careful interpretation of the results. Nonetheless, this work contributes to the growing body of methods for uncovering heterogeneous treatment effects, which can have important implications for clinical decision-making and the development of targeted therapies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Identifying treatment response subgroups in observational time-to-event data
Vincent Jeanselme, Chang Ho Yoon, Fabian Falck, Brian Tom, Jessica Barrett
Identifying patient subgroups with different treatment responses is an important task to inform medical recommendations, guidelines, and the design of future clinical trials. Existing approaches for subgroup analysis primarily focus on Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), in which treatment assignment is randomised. Furthermore, the patient cohort of an RCT is often constrained by cost, and is not representative of the heterogeneity of patients likely to receive treatment in real-world clinical practice. Therefore, when applied to observational studies, such approaches suffer from significant statistical biases because of the non-randomisation of treatment. Our work introduces a novel, outcome-guided method for identifying treatment response subgroups in observational studies. Our approach assigns each patient to a subgroup associated with two time-to-event distributions: one under treatment and one under control regime. It hence positions itself in between individualised and average treatment effect estimation. The assumptions of our model result in a simple correction of the statistical bias from treatment non-randomisation through inverse propensity weighting. In experiments, our approach significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art method for outcome-guided subgroup analysis in both randomised and observational treatment regimes.
Read more8/9/2024
📊
0
Detecting critical treatment effect bias in small subgroups
Piersilvio De Bartolomeis, Javier Abad, Konstantin Donhauser, Fanny Yang
Randomized trials are considered the gold standard for making informed decisions in medicine, yet they often lack generalizability to the patient populations in clinical practice. Observational studies, on the other hand, cover a broader patient population but are prone to various biases. Thus, before using an observational study for decision-making, it is crucial to benchmark its treatment effect estimates against those derived from a randomized trial. We propose a novel strategy to benchmark observational studies beyond the average treatment effect. First, we design a statistical test for the null hypothesis that the treatment effects estimated from the two studies, conditioned on a set of relevant features, differ up to some tolerance. We then estimate an asymptotically valid lower bound on the maximum bias strength for any subgroup in the observational study. Finally, we validate our benchmarking strategy in a real-world setting and show that it leads to conclusions that align with established medical knowledge.
Read more4/30/2024
0
Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects by Combining Weak Instruments and Observational Data
Miruna Oprescu, Nathan Kallus
Accurately predicting conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) is crucial in personalized medicine and digital platform analytics. Since often the treatments of interest cannot be directly randomized, observational data is leveraged to learn CATEs, but this approach can incur significant bias from unobserved confounding. One strategy to overcome these limitations is to seek latent quasi-experiments in instrumental variables (IVs) for the treatment, for example, a randomized intent to treat or a randomized product recommendation. This approach, on the other hand, can suffer from low compliance, i.e., IV weakness. Some subgroups may even exhibit zero compliance meaning we cannot instrument for their CATEs at all. In this paper we develop a novel approach to combine IV and observational data to enable reliable CATE estimation in the presence of unobserved confounding in the observational data and low compliance in the IV data, including no compliance for some subgroups. We propose a two-stage framework that first learns biased CATEs from the observational data, and then applies a compliance-weighted correction using IV data, effectively leveraging IV strength variability across covariates. We characterize the convergence rates of our method and validate its effectiveness through a simulation study. Additionally, we demonstrate its utility with real data by analyzing the heterogeneous effects of 401(k) plan participation on wealth.
Read more6/11/2024
🔍
0
Data-driven subgrouping of patient trajectories with chronic diseases: Evidence from low back pain
Christof Naumzik, Alice Kongsted, Werner Vach, Stefan Feuerriegel
Clinical data informs the personalization of health care with a potential for more effective disease management. In practice, this is achieved by subgrouping, whereby clusters with similar patient characteristics are identified and then receive customized treatment plans with the goal of targeting subgroup-specific disease dynamics. In this paper, we propose a novel mixture hidden Markov model for subgrouping patient trajectories from chronic diseases. Our model is probabilistic and carefully designed to capture different trajectory phases of chronic diseases (i.e., severe, moderate, and mild) through tailored latent states. We demonstrate our subgrouping framework based on a longitudinal study across 847 patients with non-specific low back pain. Here, our subgrouping framework identifies 8 subgroups. Further, we show that our subgrouping framework outperforms common baselines in terms of cluster validity indices. Finally, we discuss the applicability of the model to other chronic and long-lasting diseases.
Read more4/17/2024