评估随机对照试验中异质性治疗效果的机器学习方法:范围综述》。

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111538
Kosuke Inoue , Motohiko Adomi , Orestis Efthimiou , Toshiaki Komura , Kenji Omae , Akira Onishi , Yusuke Tsutsumi , Tomoko Fujii , Naoki Kondo , Toshi A. Furukawa
{"title":"评估随机对照试验中异质性治疗效果的机器学习方法:范围综述》。","authors":"Kosuke Inoue ,&nbsp;Motohiko Adomi ,&nbsp;Orestis Efthimiou ,&nbsp;Toshiaki Komura ,&nbsp;Kenji Omae ,&nbsp;Akira Onishi ,&nbsp;Yusuke Tsutsumi ,&nbsp;Tomoko Fujii ,&nbsp;Naoki Kondo ,&nbsp;Toshi A. Furukawa","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objectives</h3><div>Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has received substantial attention recently. This has led to the development of several statistical and machine learning (ML) algorithms to assess HTEs through identifying individualized treatment effects. However, a comprehensive review of these algorithms is lacking. We thus aimed to catalog and outline currently available statistical and ML methods for identifying HTEs via effect modeling using clinical RCT data and summarize how they have been applied in practice.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We performed a scoping review using prespecified search terms in MEDLINE and Embase, aiming to identify studies that assessed HTEs using advanced statistical and ML methods in RCT data published from 2010 to 2022.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among a total of 32 studies identified in the review, 17 studies applied existing algorithms to RCT data, and 15 extended existing algorithms or proposed new algorithms. Applied algorithms included penalized regression, causal forest, Bayesian causal forest, and other metalearner frameworks. Of these methods, causal forest was the most frequently used (7 studies) followed by Bayesian causal forest (4 studies). Most applications were in cardiology (6 studies), followed by psychiatry (4 studies). We provide example R codes in simulated data to illustrate how to implement these algorithms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review identified and outlined various algorithms currently used to identify HTEs and individualized treatment effects in RCT data. Given the increasing availability of new algorithms, analysts should carefully select them after examining model performance and considering how the models will be used in practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 111538"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine learning approaches to evaluate heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized controlled trials: a scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Kosuke Inoue ,&nbsp;Motohiko Adomi ,&nbsp;Orestis Efthimiou ,&nbsp;Toshiaki Komura ,&nbsp;Kenji Omae ,&nbsp;Akira Onishi ,&nbsp;Yusuke Tsutsumi ,&nbsp;Tomoko Fujii ,&nbsp;Naoki Kondo ,&nbsp;Toshi A. Furukawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Objectives</h3><div>Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has received substantial attention recently. This has led to the development of several statistical and machine learning (ML) algorithms to assess HTEs through identifying individualized treatment effects. However, a comprehensive review of these algorithms is lacking. We thus aimed to catalog and outline currently available statistical and ML methods for identifying HTEs via effect modeling using clinical RCT data and summarize how they have been applied in practice.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We performed a scoping review using prespecified search terms in MEDLINE and Embase, aiming to identify studies that assessed HTEs using advanced statistical and ML methods in RCT data published from 2010 to 2022.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among a total of 32 studies identified in the review, 17 studies applied existing algorithms to RCT data, and 15 extended existing algorithms or proposed new algorithms. Applied algorithms included penalized regression, causal forest, Bayesian causal forest, and other metalearner frameworks. Of these methods, causal forest was the most frequently used (7 studies) followed by Bayesian causal forest (4 studies). Most applications were in cardiology (6 studies), followed by psychiatry (4 studies). We provide example R codes in simulated data to illustrate how to implement these algorithms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review identified and outlined various algorithms currently used to identify HTEs and individualized treatment effects in RCT data. Given the increasing availability of new algorithms, analysts should carefully select them after examining model performance and considering how the models will be used in practice.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"176 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111538\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002944\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002944","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

背景:最近,在随机对照试验(RCT)中估算异质性治疗效果(HTE)受到了广泛关注。因此,人们开发了多种统计和机器学习(ML)算法,通过识别个体化治疗效果来评估异质性治疗效果。然而,目前还缺乏对这些算法的全面回顾。因此,我们旨在对目前可用的统计和 ML 方法进行编目和概述,以便利用临床 RCT 数据通过效应建模识别 HTE,并总结这些方法在实践中的应用情况:我们在MEDLINE和Embase中使用预先指定的检索词进行了范围综述,旨在确定2010年至2022年期间发表的使用高级统计和ML方法在RCT数据中评估HTE的研究:在综述中确定的 32 项研究中,17 项研究将现有算法应用于 RCT 数据,15 项研究扩展了现有算法或提出了新算法。应用的算法包括惩罚回归、因果森林、贝叶斯因果森林和其他元学习框架。在这些方法中,因果森林最常用(7 项研究),其次是贝叶斯因果森林(4 项研究)。应用最多的是心脏病学(6 项研究),其次是精神病学(4 项研究)。我们提供了 R 代码示例,以说明如何实施这些算法:本综述确定并概述了目前用于识别 RCT 数据中 HTEs 和个体化治疗效果的各种算法。鉴于新算法的可用性越来越高,分析师应在检查模型性能并考虑如何在实践中使用模型后谨慎选择这些算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Machine learning approaches to evaluate heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized controlled trials: a scoping review

Background and Objectives

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has received substantial attention recently. This has led to the development of several statistical and machine learning (ML) algorithms to assess HTEs through identifying individualized treatment effects. However, a comprehensive review of these algorithms is lacking. We thus aimed to catalog and outline currently available statistical and ML methods for identifying HTEs via effect modeling using clinical RCT data and summarize how they have been applied in practice.

Study Design and Setting

We performed a scoping review using prespecified search terms in MEDLINE and Embase, aiming to identify studies that assessed HTEs using advanced statistical and ML methods in RCT data published from 2010 to 2022.

Results

Among a total of 32 studies identified in the review, 17 studies applied existing algorithms to RCT data, and 15 extended existing algorithms or proposed new algorithms. Applied algorithms included penalized regression, causal forest, Bayesian causal forest, and other metalearner frameworks. Of these methods, causal forest was the most frequently used (7 studies) followed by Bayesian causal forest (4 studies). Most applications were in cardiology (6 studies), followed by psychiatry (4 studies). We provide example R codes in simulated data to illustrate how to implement these algorithms.

Conclusion

This review identified and outlined various algorithms currently used to identify HTEs and individualized treatment effects in RCT data. Given the increasing availability of new algorithms, analysts should carefully select them after examining model performance and considering how the models will be used in practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
Research culture influences in health and biomedical research: Rapid scoping review and content analysis. Corrigendum to 'Avoiding searching for outcomes called for additional search strategies: a study of cochrane review searches' [Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149 (2022) 83-88]. A methodological review identified several options for utilizing registries for randomized controlled trials. Real-time Adaptive Randomization of Clinical Trials. Some superiority trials with non-significant results published in high impact factor journals correspond to non-inferiority situations: a research-on-research study.
×
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:481959085
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