实践中的最佳治疗方案评估:抑郁症随机临床试验的挑战和选择。

IF 1.4 4区 数学 Q3 BIOLOGY
Biometrics Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1093/biomtc/ujaf026
Florian Stijven, Trung Dung Tran, Ellen Driessen, Ariel Alonso Abad, Geert Molenberghs, Geert Verbeke, Iven Van Mechelen
{"title":"实践中的最佳治疗方案评估:抑郁症随机临床试验的挑战和选择。","authors":"Florian Stijven, Trung Dung Tran, Ellen Driessen, Ariel Alonso Abad, Geert Molenberghs, Geert Verbeke, Iven Van Mechelen","doi":"10.1093/biomtc/ujaf026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An important aspect of precision medicine is the tailoring of treatments to specific patient types. Nowadays, various methods are available to estimate for this purpose so-called optimal treatment regimes, that is, decision rules for treatment assignment that map patterns of pretreatment characteristics to treatment alternatives and that maximize the expected patient benefit. However, the application of these methods to real-life data has been limited and comes with nonstandard statistical issues. In search of best practices, we reanalyzed data from a randomized clinical trial for the treatment of dysthymic disorder. While the original objective of this trial was to detect a marginally best treatment alternative, we wanted to estimate an optimal treatment regime using 2 prominent estimation methods: Q-learning and value search estimation. An important obstacle in the dataset under study was the occurrence of missing values. This was handled with multiple imputation, a thoughtful implementation of which, however, implied several challenges. Other challenges were implied by the concrete implementation of value search estimation. In this paper, all the choices we have made in the analysis to handle the aforementioned issues are detailed together with a motivation and a description of possible alternatives. Accordingly, this paper may serve as a guide to apply optimal treatment regime estimation in data-analytic practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":8930,"journal":{"name":"Biometrics","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal treatment regime estimation in practice: challenges and choices in a randomized clinical trial for depression.\",\"authors\":\"Florian Stijven, Trung Dung Tran, Ellen Driessen, Ariel Alonso Abad, Geert Molenberghs, Geert Verbeke, Iven Van Mechelen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/biomtc/ujaf026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>An important aspect of precision medicine is the tailoring of treatments to specific patient types. Nowadays, various methods are available to estimate for this purpose so-called optimal treatment regimes, that is, decision rules for treatment assignment that map patterns of pretreatment characteristics to treatment alternatives and that maximize the expected patient benefit. However, the application of these methods to real-life data has been limited and comes with nonstandard statistical issues. In search of best practices, we reanalyzed data from a randomized clinical trial for the treatment of dysthymic disorder. While the original objective of this trial was to detect a marginally best treatment alternative, we wanted to estimate an optimal treatment regime using 2 prominent estimation methods: Q-learning and value search estimation. An important obstacle in the dataset under study was the occurrence of missing values. This was handled with multiple imputation, a thoughtful implementation of which, however, implied several challenges. Other challenges were implied by the concrete implementation of value search estimation. In this paper, all the choices we have made in the analysis to handle the aforementioned issues are detailed together with a motivation and a description of possible alternatives. Accordingly, this paper may serve as a guide to apply optimal treatment regime estimation in data-analytic practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biometrics\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/biomtc/ujaf026\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biometrics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/biomtc/ujaf026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精准医疗的一个重要方面是针对特定的病人类型定制治疗方案。如今,有各种方法可用于估计所谓的最佳治疗方案,即将预处理特征模式映射到治疗方案并最大化预期患者利益的治疗分配决策规则。然而,这些方法在实际数据中的应用受到了限制,并且伴随着非标准的统计问题。为了寻找最佳实践,我们重新分析了一项治疗心境恶劣障碍的随机临床试验的数据。虽然本试验的最初目的是检测一个略微最佳的治疗方案,但我们希望使用两种主要的估计方法来估计最佳治疗方案:q学习和值搜索估计。研究数据集中的一个重要障碍是缺失值的出现。这是通过多重imputation来处理的,然而,一个深思熟虑的实现意味着一些挑战。价值搜索估计的具体实现暗示了其他挑战。在本文中,我们在分析中所做的所有选择,以处理上述问题是详细的,连同动机和可能的替代方案的描述。因此,本文可以为在数据分析实践中应用最优处理方案估计提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimal treatment regime estimation in practice: challenges and choices in a randomized clinical trial for depression.

An important aspect of precision medicine is the tailoring of treatments to specific patient types. Nowadays, various methods are available to estimate for this purpose so-called optimal treatment regimes, that is, decision rules for treatment assignment that map patterns of pretreatment characteristics to treatment alternatives and that maximize the expected patient benefit. However, the application of these methods to real-life data has been limited and comes with nonstandard statistical issues. In search of best practices, we reanalyzed data from a randomized clinical trial for the treatment of dysthymic disorder. While the original objective of this trial was to detect a marginally best treatment alternative, we wanted to estimate an optimal treatment regime using 2 prominent estimation methods: Q-learning and value search estimation. An important obstacle in the dataset under study was the occurrence of missing values. This was handled with multiple imputation, a thoughtful implementation of which, however, implied several challenges. Other challenges were implied by the concrete implementation of value search estimation. In this paper, all the choices we have made in the analysis to handle the aforementioned issues are detailed together with a motivation and a description of possible alternatives. Accordingly, this paper may serve as a guide to apply optimal treatment regime estimation in data-analytic 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
Biometrics
Biometrics 生物-生物学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
178
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Biometric Society is an international society promoting the development and application of statistical and mathematical theory and methods in the biosciences, including agriculture, biomedical science and public health, ecology, environmental sciences, forestry, and allied disciplines. The Society welcomes as members statisticians, mathematicians, biological scientists, and others devoted to interdisciplinary efforts in advancing the collection and interpretation of information in the biosciences. The Society sponsors the biennial International Biometric Conference, held in sites throughout the world; through its National Groups and Regions, it also Society sponsors regional and local meetings.
×
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