Treatment Selection and Modalities

1994 ◽  
pp. 197-256
Author(s):  
Yifrah Kaminer
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 74 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Arnold ◽  
D Margraf ◽  
O Hoffmann ◽  
K von Dehn-Rotfelser ◽  
I Funke ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 096228022110028
Author(s):  
Yun Li ◽  
Irina Bondarenko ◽  
Michael R Elliott ◽  
Timothy P Hofer ◽  
Jeremy MG Taylor

With medical tests becoming increasingly available, concerns about over-testing, over-treatment and health care cost dramatically increase. Hence, it is important to understand the influence of testing on treatment selection in general practice. Most statistical methods focus on average effects of testing on treatment decisions. However, this may be ill-advised, particularly for patient subgroups that tend not to benefit from such tests. Furthermore, missing data are common, representing large and often unaddressed threats to the validity of most statistical methods. Finally, it is often desirable to conduct analyses that can be interpreted causally. Using the Rubin Causal Model framework, we propose to classify patients into four potential outcomes subgroups, defined by whether or not a patient’s treatment selection is changed by the test result and by the direction of how the test result changes treatment selection. This subgroup classification naturally captures the differential influence of medical testing on treatment selections for different patients, which can suggest targets to improve the utilization of medical tests. We can then examine patient characteristics associated with patient potential outcomes subgroup memberships. We used multiple imputation methods to simultaneously impute the missing potential outcomes as well as regular missing values. This approach can also provide estimates of many traditional causal quantities of interest. We find that explicitly incorporating causal inference assumptions into the multiple imputation process can improve the precision for some causal estimates of interest. We also find that bias can occur when the potential outcomes conditional independence assumption is violated; sensitivity analyses are proposed to assess the impact of this violation. We applied the proposed methods to examine the influence of 21-gene assay, the most commonly used genomic test in the United States, on chemotherapy selection among breast cancer patients.


Biometrika ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Dukes ◽  
Stijn Vansteelandt

Summary Eliminating the effect of confounding in observational studies typically involves fitting a model for an outcome adjusted for covariates. When, as often, these covariates are high-dimensional, this necessitates the use of sparse estimators, such as the lasso, or other regularization approaches. Naïve use of such estimators yields confidence intervals for the conditional treatment effect parameter that are not uniformly valid. Moreover, as the number of covariates grows with the sample size, correctly specifying a model for the outcome is nontrivial. In this article we deal with both of these concerns simultaneously, obtaining confidence intervals for conditional treatment effects that are uniformly valid, regardless of whether the outcome model is correct. This is done by incorporating an additional model for the treatment selection mechanism. When both models are correctly specified, we can weaken the standard conditions on model sparsity. Our procedure extends to multivariate treatment effect parameters and complex longitudinal settings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document