Learning Personalized Treatment Decisions in Precision Medicine: Disentangling Treatment Assignment Bias in Counterfactual Outcome Prediction and Biomarker Identification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00509v3
• Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 03:32:13 GMT
• Title: Learning Personalized Treatment Decisions in Precision Medicine: Disentangling Treatment Assignment Bias in Counterfactual Outcome Prediction and Biomarker Identification
• Authors: Michael Vollenweider, Manuel Schürch, Chiara Rohrer, Gabriele Gut, Michael Krauthammer, Andreas Wicki,
• Abstract summary: Precision medicine has the potential to tailor treatment decisions to individual patients using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) It faces significant challenges due to complex biases in clinical observational data and the high-dimensional nature of biological data. This study models various types of treatment assignment biases using mutual information and investigates their impact on ML models.
• Score: 0.05277756703318046
• License:
• Abstract: Precision medicine has the potential to tailor treatment decisions to individual patients using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), but it faces significant challenges due to complex biases in clinical observational data and the high-dimensional nature of biological data. This study models various types of treatment assignment biases using mutual information and investigates their impact on ML models for counterfactual prediction and biomarker identification. Unlike traditional counterfactual benchmarks that rely on fixed treatment policies, our work focuses on modeling different characteristics of the underlying observational treatment policy in distinct clinical settings. We validate our approach through experiments on toy datasets, semi-synthetic tumor cancer genome atlas (TCGA) data, and real-world biological outcomes from drug and CRISPR screens. By incorporating empirical biological mechanisms, we create a more realistic benchmark that reflects the complexities of real-world data. Our analysis reveals that different biases lead to varying model performances, with some biases, especially those unrelated to outcome mechanisms, having minimal effect on prediction accuracy. This highlights the crucial need to account for specific biases in clinical observational data in counterfactual ML model development, ultimately enhancing the personalization of treatment decisions in precision medicine.

Related papers

• Meta-Learners for Partially-Identified Treatment Effects Across Multiple Environments [67.80453452949303]
  Estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) from observational data is relevant for many applications such as personalized medicine. Here, we focus on the widespread setting where the observational data come from multiple environments. We propose different model-agnostic learners (so-called meta-learners) to estimate the bounds that can be used in combination with arbitrary machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T16:31:43Z)
• Towards AI-Based Precision Oncology: A Machine Learning Framework for Personalized Counterfactual Treatment Suggestions based on Multi-Omics Data [0.05025737475817938]
  We propose a modular machine learning framework designed for personalized counterfactual cancer treatment suggestions. The framework is tailored to address critical challenges inherent in data-driven cancer research. Our method aims to empower clinicians with a reality-centric decision-support tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T14:54:20Z)
• Mixed-Integer Projections for Automated Data Correction of EMRs Improve Predictions of Sepsis among Hospitalized Patients [7.639610349097473]
  We introduce an innovative projections-based method that seamlessly integrates clinical expertise as domain constraints. We measure the distance of corrected data from the constraints defining a healthy range of patient data, resulting in a unique predictive metric we term as "trust-scores" We show an AUROC of 0.865 and a precision of 0.922, that surpasses conventional ML models without such projections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T15:14:49Z)
• Algorithmic Bias, Generalist Models,and Clinical Medicine [1.9143819780453073]
  The dominant paradigm in clinical machine learning is narrow in the sense that models are trained on biomedical datasets for particular clinical tasks. The emerging paradigm is generalist in the sense that general-purpose language models such as Google's BERT and PaLM are increasingly being adapted for clinical use cases. Many of these next-generation models provide substantial performance gains over prior clinical models, but at the same time introduce novel kinds of algorithmic bias. This paper articulates how and in what respects biases in generalist models differ from biases in prior clinical models, and draws out practical recommendations for algorithmic bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-06T10:48:51Z)
• 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)
• Improving generalization of machine learning-identified biomarkers with causal modeling: an investigation into immune receptor diagnostics [2.40246230430283]
  We focus on a specific, recently established high-dimensional biomarker - adaptive immune receptor repertoires (AIRRs) We argue that causal modeling improves machine learning-based biomarker robustness by identifying stable relations between variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-20T08:15:54Z)
• What Do You See in this Patient? Behavioral Testing of Clinical NLP Models [69.09570726777817]
  We introduce an extendable testing framework that evaluates the behavior of clinical outcome models regarding changes of the input. We show that model behavior varies drastically even when fine-tuned on the same data and that allegedly best-performing models have not always learned the most medically plausible patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-30T15:52:04Z)
• MIA-Prognosis: A Deep Learning Framework to Predict Therapy Response [58.0291320452122]
  This paper aims at a unified deep learning approach to predict patient prognosis and therapy response. We formalize the prognosis modeling as a multi-modal asynchronous time series classification task. Our predictive model could further stratify low-risk and high-risk patients in terms of long-term survival.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T15:30:17Z)
• Select-ProtoNet: Learning to Select for Few-Shot Disease Subtype Prediction [55.94378672172967]
  We focus on few-shot disease subtype prediction problem, identifying subgroups of similar patients. We introduce meta learning techniques to develop a new model, which can extract the common experience or knowledge from interrelated clinical tasks. Our new model is built upon a carefully designed meta-learner, called Prototypical Network, that is a simple yet effective meta learning machine for few-shot image classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-02T02:50:30Z)
• Trajectories, bifurcations and pseudotime in large clinical datasets: applications to myocardial infarction and diabetes data [94.37521840642141]
  We suggest a semi-supervised methodology for the analysis of large clinical datasets, characterized by mixed data types and missing values. The methodology is based on application of elastic principal graphs which can address simultaneously the tasks of dimensionality reduction, data visualization, clustering, feature selection and quantifying the geodesic distances (pseudotime) in partially ordered sequences of observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-07T21:04:55Z)

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.