Application of causal forests to randomised controlled trial data to identify heterogeneous treatment effects: a case study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1186/s12874-025-02489-2
Eleanor Van Vogt, Anthony C Gordon, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Suzie Cro
{"title":"Application of causal forests to randomised controlled trial data to identify heterogeneous treatment effects: a case study.","authors":"Eleanor Van Vogt, Anthony C Gordon, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Suzie Cro","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02489-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Classical approaches to subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to identify heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) involve testing the interaction between each pre-specified possible treatment effect modifier and the treatment effect. However, individual significant interactions may not always yield clinically actionable subgroups, particularly for continuous covariates. Non-parametric causal machine learning approaches are flexible alternatives for estimating HTEs across many possible treatment effect modifiers in a single analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of the VANISH RCT, which compared the early use of vasopressin with norepinephrine on renal failure-free survival for patients with septic shock at 28 days. We used classical (separate tests for interaction with Bonferroni correction), data-adaptive (hierarchical lasso regression), and non-parametric causal machine learning (causal forest) methods to analyse HTEs for the primary outcome of being alive at 28 days. Causal forests comprise honest causal trees, which use sample splitting to determine tree splits and estimate treatment effects separately. The modal initial (root) splits of the causal forest were extracted, and the mean value was used as a threshold to partition the population into subgroups with different treatment effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three models found evidence of HTE with serum potassium levels. Univariable logistic regression OR 0.435 (95%CI [0.270, 0.683]. p = 0.0004), hierarchical lasso logistic regression standardised OR: 0.604 (95% CI 0.259, 0.701), lambda = 0.0049. Hierarchical lasso kept the interaction between the treatment and serum potassium, sodium level, minimum temperature, platelet count and presence of ischemic heart disease. The causal forest approach found some evidence of HTE (p = 0.124). When extracting root splits, the modal split was on serum potassium (mean applied threshold of 4.68 mmol/L). When dividing the patient population into subgroups based on the mean initial root threshold, risk differences in being alive at 28 days were 0.069 (95%CI [-0.032, 0.169]) and - 0.257 (95%CI [-0.368, -0.146]) with serum potassium ≤ 4.68 and > 4.68 respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The causal forest agreed with the data-adaptive and classical method of subgroup analysis in identifying HTE by serum potassium. Whilst classical and data-adaptive methods may identify sources of HTE, they do not immediately suggest subgroup splits which are clinically actionable. The extraction of root splits in causal forests is a novel approach to obtaining data-derived subgroups, to be further investigated.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11846376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02489-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Classical approaches to subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to identify heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) involve testing the interaction between each pre-specified possible treatment effect modifier and the treatment effect. However, individual significant interactions may not always yield clinically actionable subgroups, particularly for continuous covariates. Non-parametric causal machine learning approaches are flexible alternatives for estimating HTEs across many possible treatment effect modifiers in a single analysis.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the VANISH RCT, which compared the early use of vasopressin with norepinephrine on renal failure-free survival for patients with septic shock at 28 days. We used classical (separate tests for interaction with Bonferroni correction), data-adaptive (hierarchical lasso regression), and non-parametric causal machine learning (causal forest) methods to analyse HTEs for the primary outcome of being alive at 28 days. Causal forests comprise honest causal trees, which use sample splitting to determine tree splits and estimate treatment effects separately. The modal initial (root) splits of the causal forest were extracted, and the mean value was used as a threshold to partition the population into subgroups with different treatment effects.

Results: All three models found evidence of HTE with serum potassium levels. Univariable logistic regression OR 0.435 (95%CI [0.270, 0.683]. p = 0.0004), hierarchical lasso logistic regression standardised OR: 0.604 (95% CI 0.259, 0.701), lambda = 0.0049. Hierarchical lasso kept the interaction between the treatment and serum potassium, sodium level, minimum temperature, platelet count and presence of ischemic heart disease. The causal forest approach found some evidence of HTE (p = 0.124). When extracting root splits, the modal split was on serum potassium (mean applied threshold of 4.68 mmol/L). When dividing the patient population into subgroups based on the mean initial root threshold, risk differences in being alive at 28 days were 0.069 (95%CI [-0.032, 0.169]) and - 0.257 (95%CI [-0.368, -0.146]) with serum potassium ≤ 4.68 and > 4.68 respectively.

Conclusions: The causal forest agreed with the data-adaptive and classical method of subgroup analysis in identifying HTE by serum potassium. Whilst classical and data-adaptive methods may identify sources of HTE, they do not immediately suggest subgroup splits which are clinically actionable. The extraction of root splits in causal forests is a novel approach to obtaining data-derived subgroups, to be further investigated.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将因果森林应用于随机对照试验数据以确定异质性治疗效果:一个案例研究。
背景:在随机对照试验(RCTs)中,用于识别异质性治疗效果(HTEs)的经典亚组分析方法包括测试每个预先指定的可能治疗效果调节剂与治疗效果之间的相互作用。然而,个体显著的相互作用可能并不总是产生临床可操作的亚组,特别是对于连续协变量。非参数因果机器学习方法是在单个分析中估计许多可能的治疗效果修饰因子的hte的灵活选择。方法:我们对VANISH随机对照试验进行了二次分析,比较了早期使用加压素和去甲肾上腺素对感染性休克患者28天无肾功能衰竭生存的影响。我们使用经典(与Bonferroni校正相互作用的单独测试)、数据自适应(分层套索回归)和非参数因果机器学习(因果森林)方法来分析hte对28天存活的主要结局的影响。因果森林包括诚实的因果树,它使用样本分裂来确定树的分裂和单独估计处理效果。提取因果森林的模态初始(根)分裂,并以均值作为阈值,将种群划分为具有不同处理效果的亚组。结果:三种模型均发现HTE与血清钾水平有关。单变量logistic回归OR 0.435 (95%CI[0.270, 0.683])。p = 0.0004),分层套索logistic回归标准化OR: 0.604 (95% CI 0.259, 0.701), lambda = 0.0049。分层lasso保持了治疗与血清钾、钠水平、最低温度、血小板计数和缺血性心脏病存在之间的相互作用。因果森林方法发现了一些HTE的证据(p = 0.124)。提取根裂时,模态劈裂作用于血清钾(平均应用阈值为4.68 mmol/L)。根据平均初始根阈值将患者分组时,血清钾≤4.68、血钾≤4.68时,28天存活风险差异分别为0.069 (95%CI[-0.032, 0.169])和- 0.257 (95%CI[-0.368, -0.146])。结论:因果森林与经典的亚组分析方法在血清钾检测HTE时的数据适应性一致。虽然经典和数据适应方法可以确定HTE的来源,但它们不能立即提出临床可操作的亚群划分。在因果森林中提取根裂是一种获得数据衍生子群的新方法,有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
A comparison and evaluation of statistical methods for mediation analysis with mixtures of environmental exposures. Compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement: an AI-based assessment and longitudinal comparison with 2017 data. Participant recruitment and retention in a longitudinal study: experience from SARS-CoV-2 cohort in Ethiopia. From raw clinical data to robust prediction: an AI framework for early lymphedema detection. A feature selection-based oblique hyperplane for oblique random survival forests.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1