| Literature DB >> 26988928 |
Andrea Lamont1, Michael D Lyons2, Thomas Jaki3, Elizabeth Stuart4, Daniel J Feaster5, Kukatharmini Tharmaratnam6, Daniel Oberski7, Hemant Ishwaran5, Dawn K Wilson1, M Lee Van Horn8.
Abstract
In most medical research, treatment effectiveness is assessed using the average treatment effect or some version of subgroup analysis. The practice of individualized or precision medicine, however, requires new approaches that predict how an individual will respond to treatment, rather than relying on aggregate measures of effect. In this study, we present a conceptual framework for estimating individual treatment effects, referred to as predicted individual treatment effects. We first apply the predicted individual treatment effect approach to a randomized controlled trial designed to improve behavioral and physical symptoms. Despite trivial average effects of the intervention, we show substantial heterogeneity in predicted individual treatment response using the predicted individual treatment effect approach. The predicted individual treatment effects can be used to predict individuals for whom the intervention may be most effective (or harmful). Next, we conduct a Monte Carlo simulation study to evaluate the accuracy of predicted individual treatment effects. We compare the performance of two methods used to obtain predictions: multiple imputation and non-parametric random decision trees. Results showed that, on average, both predictive methods produced accurate estimates at the individual level; however, the random decision trees tended to underestimate the predicted individual treatment effect for people at the extreme and showed more variability in predictions across repetitions compared to the imputation approach. Limitations and future directions are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Predicted individual treatment effects; heterogeneity in treatment effects; individual predictions; individualized medicine; multiple imputation; random decision trees; random forests
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26988928 DOI: 10.1177/0962280215623981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stat Methods Med Res ISSN: 0962-2802 Impact factor: 3.021