Literature DB >> 31602641

Estimating treatment effects with machine learning.

K John McConnell1, Stephan Lindner1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the performance of methodologies that include machine learning (ML) algorithms to estimate average treatment effects under the assumption of exogeneity (selection on observables). DATA SOURCES: Simulated data and observational data on hospitalized adults. STUDY
DESIGN: We assessed the performance of several ML-based estimators, including Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation, Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, Causal Random Forests, Double Machine Learning, and Bayesian Causal Forests, applying these methods to simulated data as well as data on the effects of right heart catheterization. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: In Monte Carlo studies, ML-based estimators generated estimates with smaller bias than traditional regression approaches, demonstrating substantial (69 percent-98 percent) bias reduction in some scenarios. Bayesian Causal Forests and Double Machine Learning were top performers, although all were sensitive to high dimensional (>150) sets of covariates.
CONCLUSIONS: ML-based methods are promising methods for estimating treatment effects, allowing for the inclusion of many covariates and automating the search for nonlinearities and interactions among variables. We provide guidance and sample code for researchers interested in implementing these tools in their own empirical work. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Keywords:  machine learning; observational research; treatment effects

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31602641      PMCID: PMC6863230          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13212

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  18 in total

1.  Estimation based on case-control designs with known prevalence probability.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  Simple optimal weighting of cases and controls in case-control studies.

Authors:  Sherri Rose; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2008-09-29       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  Prediction modeling using EHR data: challenges, strategies, and a comparison of machine learning approaches.

Authors:  Jionglin Wu; Jason Roy; Walter F Stewart
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies.

Authors:  D Y Lin; B M Psaty; R A Kronmal
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Machine Learning for Healthcare: On the Verge of a Major Shift in Healthcare Epidemiology.

Authors:  Jenna Wiens; Erica S Shenoy
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 9.079

6.  Robust Machine Learning Variable Importance Analyses of Medical Conditions for Health Care Spending.

Authors:  Sherri Rose
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-03-11       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Estimating treatment effects with machine learning.

Authors:  K John McConnell; Stephan Lindner
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for a binary treatment: A tutorial.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez; Michael Schomaker; Bernard Rachet; Mireille E Schnitzer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  On the Use of the Lasso for Instrumental Variables Estimation with Some Invalid Instruments.

Authors:  Frank Windmeijer; Helmut Farbmacher; Neil Davies; George Davey Smith
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 10.  Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction.

Authors:  Konstantina Kourou; Themis P Exarchos; Konstantinos P Exarchos; Michalis V Karamouzis; Dimitrios I Fotiadis
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 7.271

View more
  4 in total

1.  Estimating treatment effects with machine learning.

Authors:  K John McConnell; Stephan Lindner
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Assessing putative bias in prediction of anti-microbial resistance from real-world genotyping data under explicit causal assumptions.

Authors:  Mattia Prosperi; Christina Boucher; Jiang Bian; Simone Marini
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 7.011

3.  Use of behavioral health care in Medicaid managed care carve-out versus carve-in arrangements.

Authors:  Christina J Charlesworth; Jane M Zhu; Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; K John McConnell
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 3.734

Review 4.  Precision Reimbursement for Precision Medicine: Using Real-World Evidence to Evolve From Trial-and-Project to Track-and-Pay to Learn-and-Predict.

Authors:  Hans-Georg Eichler; Mark Trusheim; Brigitte Schwarzer-Daum; Kay Larholt; Markus Zeitlinger; Martin Brunninger; Michael Sherman; David Strutton; Gigi Hirsch
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 6.903

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.