Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yingying Zhang, Noemi Kreif, Vijay S Gc, Andrea Manca
{"title":"Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"Yingying Zhang, Noemi Kreif, Vijay S Gc, Andrea Manca","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241263356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent developments in causal inference and machine learning (ML) allow for the estimation of individualized treatment effects (ITEs), which reveal whether treatment effectiveness varies according to patients' observed covariates. ITEs can be used to stratify health policy decisions according to individual characteristics and potentially achieve greater population health. Little is known about the appropriateness of available ML methods for use in health technology assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this scoping review, we evaluate ML methods available for estimating ITEs, aiming to help practitioners assess their suitability in health technology assessment. We present a taxonomy of ML approaches, categorized by key challenges in health technology assessment using observational data, including handling time-varying confounding and time-to event data and quantifying uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found a wide range of algorithms for simpler settings with baseline confounding and continuous or binary outcomes. Not many ML algorithms can handle time-varying or unobserved confounding, and at the time of writing, no ML algorithm was capable of estimating ITEs for time-to-event outcomes while accounting for time-varying confounding. Many of the ML algorithms that estimate ITEs in longitudinal settings do not formally quantify uncertainty around the point estimates.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This scoping review may not cover all relevant ML methods and algorithms as they are continuously evolving.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing ML methods available for ITE estimation are limited in handling important challenges posed by observational data when used for cost-effectiveness analysis, such as time-to-event outcomes, time-varying and hidden confounding, or the need to estimate sampling uncertainty around the estimates.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>ML methods are promising but need further development before they can be used to estimate ITEs for health technology assessments.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Estimating individualized treatment effects (ITEs) using observational data and machine learning (ML) can support personalized treatment advice and help deliver more customized information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health technologies.ML methods for ITE estimation are mostly designed for handling confounding at baseline but not time-varying or unobserved confounding. The few models that account for time-varying confounding are designed for continuous or binary outcomes, not time-to-event outcomes.Not all ML methods for estimating ITEs can quantify the uncertainty of their predictions.Future work on developing ML that addresses the concerns summarized in this review is needed before these methods can be widely used in clinical and health technology assessment-like decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241263356","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent developments in causal inference and machine learning (ML) allow for the estimation of individualized treatment effects (ITEs), which reveal whether treatment effectiveness varies according to patients' observed covariates. ITEs can be used to stratify health policy decisions according to individual characteristics and potentially achieve greater population health. Little is known about the appropriateness of available ML methods for use in health technology assessment.

Methods: In this scoping review, we evaluate ML methods available for estimating ITEs, aiming to help practitioners assess their suitability in health technology assessment. We present a taxonomy of ML approaches, categorized by key challenges in health technology assessment using observational data, including handling time-varying confounding and time-to event data and quantifying uncertainty.

Results: We found a wide range of algorithms for simpler settings with baseline confounding and continuous or binary outcomes. Not many ML algorithms can handle time-varying or unobserved confounding, and at the time of writing, no ML algorithm was capable of estimating ITEs for time-to-event outcomes while accounting for time-varying confounding. Many of the ML algorithms that estimate ITEs in longitudinal settings do not formally quantify uncertainty around the point estimates.

Limitations: This scoping review may not cover all relevant ML methods and algorithms as they are continuously evolving.

Conclusions: Existing ML methods available for ITE estimation are limited in handling important challenges posed by observational data when used for cost-effectiveness analysis, such as time-to-event outcomes, time-varying and hidden confounding, or the need to estimate sampling uncertainty around the estimates.

Implications: ML methods are promising but need further development before they can be used to estimate ITEs for health technology assessments.

Highlights: Estimating individualized treatment effects (ITEs) using observational data and machine learning (ML) can support personalized treatment advice and help deliver more customized information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health technologies.ML methods for ITE estimation are mostly designed for handling confounding at baseline but not time-varying or unobserved confounding. The few models that account for time-varying confounding are designed for continuous or binary outcomes, not time-to-event outcomes.Not all ML methods for estimating ITEs can quantify the uncertainty of their predictions.Future work on developing ML that addresses the concerns summarized in this review is needed before these methods can be widely used in clinical and health technology assessment-like decision making.

用于健康技术评估的个性化治疗效果估算机器学习方法。
背景:因果推理和机器学习(ML)的最新发展允许对个体化治疗效果(ITEs)进行估算,从而揭示治疗效果是否随患者观察到的协变量而变化。ITEs 可用于根据个体特征对健康政策决策进行分层,并有可能实现更高的人口健康水平。关于现有的多变量方法是否适合用于卫生技术评估,人们知之甚少:在这篇范围综述中,我们评估了用于估算 ITEs 的现有 ML 方法,旨在帮助从业人员评估这些方法在卫生技术评估中的适用性。我们根据使用观察数据进行健康技术评估的关键挑战,包括处理时变混杂因素和事件发生时间数据以及量化不确定性等,对ML方法进行了分类:我们发现有多种算法适用于基线混杂和连续或二元结果的简单设置。能够处理时变混杂或未观察到的混杂因素的 ML 算法并不多,在撰写本文时,还没有一种 ML 算法能够在考虑时变混杂因素的同时估算出时间到事件结果的 ITE。许多在纵向环境中估计 ITE 的 ML 算法并未正式量化点估计值周围的不确定性:局限性:由于 ML 方法和算法在不断发展,本范围综述可能无法涵盖所有相关的 ML 方法和算法:用于 ITE 估计的现有 ML 方法在处理用于成本效益分析的观察性数据所带来的重要挑战方面存在局限性,例如时间到事件的结果、时变混杂和隐藏混杂,或者需要估计估计值周围的抽样不确定性:影响:ML 方法很有前途,但在用于估计健康技术评估的 ITEs 之前还需要进一步开发:利用观察数据和机器学习(ML)估算个体化治疗效果(ITEs)可支持个性化治疗建议,并有助于提供更多有关卫生技术有效性和成本效益的定制信息。并非所有用于估算 ITE 的 ML 方法都能量化其预测的不确定性。在这些方法被广泛应用于临床和类似于健康技术评估的决策制定之前,还需要在开发 ML 方面开展工作,以解决本综述中总结的问题。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信