Detecting critical treatment effect bias in small subgroups

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18905v2
• Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 22:45:52 GMT
• Title: Detecting critical treatment effect bias in small subgroups
• Authors: Piersilvio De Bartolomeis, Javier Abad, Konstantin Donhauser, Fanny Yang,
• Abstract summary: 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 anally valid lower bound on the maximum bias strength for any subgroup in the observational study.
• Score: 11.437076464287822
• License:
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Identifying treatment response subgroups in observational time-to-event data [2.176207087460772]
  Our work introduces a novel, outcome-guided method for identifying treatment response subgroups in observational studies. Our approach positions itself in between individualised and average treatment effect estimation. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-06T22:38:14Z)
• SepsisLab: Early Sepsis Prediction with Uncertainty Quantification and Active Sensing [67.8991481023825]
  Sepsis is the leading cause of in-hospital mortality in the USA. Existing predictive models are usually trained on high-quality data with few missing information. For the potential high-risk patients with low confidence due to limited observations, we propose a robust active sensing algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T04:47:36Z)
• Hidden yet quantifiable: A lower bound for confounding strength using randomized trials [11.437076464287822]
  Unobserved confounding can compromise causal conclusions drawn from non-randomized data. We propose a novel strategy that leverages randomized trials to quantify unobserved confounding. We show how our lower bound can correctly identify the absence and presence of unobserved confounding in a real-world setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T19:33:34Z)
• A Double Machine Learning Approach to Combining Experimental and Observational Data [59.29868677652324]
  We propose a double machine learning approach to combine experimental and observational studies. Our framework tests for violations of external validity and ignorability under milder assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T02:53:11Z)
• Falsification of Internal and External Validity in Observational Studies via Conditional Moment Restrictions [6.9347431938654465]
  Given data from both an RCT and an observational study, assumptions on internal and external validity have an observable, testable implication. We show that expressing these CMRs with respect to the causal effect, or "causal contrast", as opposed to individual counterfactual means, provides a more reliable falsification test.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T18:16:16Z)
• Adversarial De-confounding in Individualised Treatment Effects Estimation [7.443477084710185]
  De-confounding is a fundamental problem of individualised treatment effects estimation in observational studies. This paper proposes disentangled representations with adversarial training to balance the confounders in the binary treatment setting for the ITE estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T13:11:33Z)
• Probabilistic Prediction for Binary Treatment Choice: with focus on personalized medicine [0.0]
  This paper extends my research applying statistical decision theory to treatment choice with sample data. The specific new contribution is to study as-if optimization using estimates of illness probabilities in clinical choice between surveillance and aggressive treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-02T18:34:59Z)
• Bayesian prognostic covariate adjustment [59.75318183140857]
  Historical data about disease outcomes can be integrated into the analysis of clinical trials in many ways. We build on existing literature that uses prognostic scores from a predictive model to increase the efficiency of treatment effect estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-24T05:19:03Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Generalization Bounds and Representation Learning for Estimation of Potential Outcomes and Causal Effects [61.03579766573421]
  We study estimation of individual-level causal effects, such as a single patient's response to alternative medication. We devise representation learning algorithms that minimize our bound, by regularizing the representation's induced treatment group distance. We extend these algorithms to simultaneously learn a weighted representation to further reduce treatment group distances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-21T10:16:33Z)

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.