Counterfactual Prediction Under Outcome Measurement Error

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11121v2
• Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 02:52:09 GMT
• Title: Counterfactual Prediction Under Outcome Measurement Error
• Authors: Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu
• Abstract summary: We study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which corrects for the combined effects of these challenges.
• Score: 29.071173441651734
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies can be subject to outcome measurement error when they systematically differ from the target outcome they are intended to measure. However, prior modeling efforts to characterize and mitigate outcome measurement error overlook the fact that the decision being informed by a model often serves as a risk-mitigating intervention that impacts the target outcome of interest and its recorded proxy. Thus, in these settings, addressing measurement error requires counterfactual modeling of treatment effects on outcomes. In this work, we study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which, given knowledge of proxy measurement error properties, corrects for the combined effects of these challenges. We also develop a method for estimating treatment-dependent measurement error parameters when these are unknown in advance. We demonstrate the utility of our approach theoretically and via experiments on real-world data from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthcare and employment domains. As importantly, we demonstrate that models correcting for outcome measurement error or treatment effects alone suffer from considerable reliability limitations. Our work underscores the importance of considering intersectional threats to model validity during the design and evaluation of predictive models for decision support.

Related papers

• Targeted Machine Learning for Average Causal Effect Estimation Using the Front-Door Functional [3.0232957374216953]
  evaluating the average causal effect (ACE) of a treatment on an outcome often involves overcoming the challenges posed by confounding factors in observational studies. Here, we introduce novel estimation strategies for the front-door criterion based on the targeted minimum loss-based estimation theory. We demonstrate the applicability of these estimators to analyze the effect of early stage academic performance on future yearly income.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T22:04:53Z)
• Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missing [1.6840408099522377]
  We show that a machine learning model can accurately estimate risk for both tested and untested patients. We apply our model to a case study of cancer risk prediction, showing that the model's inferred risk predicts cancer diagnoses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T19:49:06Z)
• Identifiable causal inference with noisy treatment and no side information [6.432072145009342]
  This study proposes a model that assumes a continuous treatment variable that is inaccurately measured. We prove that our model's causal effect estimates are identifiable, even without side information and knowledge of the measurement error variance. Our work extends the range of applications in which reliable causal inference can be conducted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T18:38:10Z)
• Boosting the interpretability of clinical risk scores with intervention predictions [59.22442473992704]
  We propose a joint model of intervention policy and adverse event risk as a means to explicitly communicate the model's assumptions about future interventions. We show how combining typical risk scores, such as the likelihood of mortality, with future intervention probability scores leads to more interpretable clinical predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-06T19:49:42Z)
• Benchmarking Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Models through the Lens of Interpretability [82.29775890542967]
  Estimating personalized effects of treatments is a complex, yet pervasive problem. Recent developments in the machine learning literature on heterogeneous treatment effect estimation gave rise to many sophisticated, but opaque, tools. We use post-hoc feature importance methods to identify features that influence the model's predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-16T17:59:05Z)
• Increasing the efficiency of randomized trial estimates via linear adjustment for a prognostic score [59.75318183140857]
  Estimating causal effects from randomized experiments is central to clinical research. Most methods for historical borrowing achieve reductions in variance by sacrificing strict type-I error rate control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-17T21:10:10Z)
• Counterfactual Predictions under Runtime Confounding [74.90756694584839]
  We study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-30T15:49:05Z)
• Enabling Counterfactual Survival Analysis with Balanced Representations [64.17342727357618]
  Survival data are frequently encountered across diverse medical applications, i.e., drug development, risk profiling, and clinical trials. We propose a theoretically grounded unified framework for counterfactual inference applicable to survival outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-14T01:15:00Z)
• Uncertainty estimation for classification and risk prediction on medical tabular data [0.0]
  This work advances the understanding of uncertainty estimation for classification and risk prediction on medical data. In a data-scarce field such as healthcare, the ability to measure the uncertainty of a model's prediction could potentially lead to improved effectiveness of decision support tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-13T08:46:41Z)
• Learning to Predict Error for MRI Reconstruction [67.76632988696943]
  We demonstrate that predictive uncertainty estimated by the current methods does not highly correlate with prediction error. We propose a novel method that estimates the target labels and magnitude of the prediction error in two steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-13T15:55:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.