Literature DB >> 34416832

Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes.

Christopher Weyant1, Margaret L Brandeau1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Personalizing medical treatments based on patient-specific risks and preferences can improve patient health. However, models to support personalized treatment decisions are often complex and difficult to interpret, limiting their clinical application.
METHODS: We present a new method, using machine learning to create meta-models, for simplifying complex models for personalizing medical treatment decisions. We consider simple interpretable models, interpretable ensemble models, and noninterpretable ensemble models. We use variable selection with a penalty for patient-specific risks and/or preferences that are difficult, risky, or costly to obtain. We interpret the meta-models to the extent permitted by their model architectures. We illustrate our method by applying it to simplify a previously developed model for personalized selection of antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia.
RESULTS: The best simplified interpretable, interpretable ensemble, and noninterpretable ensemble models contained at most half the number of patient-specific risks and preferences compared with the original model. The simplified models achieved 60.5% (95% credible interval [crI]: 55.2-65.4), 60.8% (95% crI: 55.5-65.7), and 83.8% (95% crI: 80.8-86.6), respectively, of the net health benefit of the original model (quality-adjusted life-years gained). Important variables in all models were similar and made intuitive sense. Computation time for the meta-models was orders of magnitude less than for the original model. LIMITATIONS: The simplified models share the limitations of the original model (e.g., potential biases).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-modeling method is disease- and model- agnostic and can be used to simplify complex models for personalization, allowing for variable selection in addition to improved model interpretability and computational performance. Simplified models may be more likely to be adopted in clinical settings and can help improve equity in patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  medical decision making; meta-model; personalized medicine; schizophrenia

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34416832      PMCID: PMC8858337          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211037921

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.749


  33 in total

1.  Super learner.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan; Eric C Polley; Alan E Hubbard
Journal:  Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2007-09-16

2.  A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis.

Authors:  Tommi Tervonen; Gert van Valkenhoef; Erik Buskens; Hans L Hillege; Douwe Postmus
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; David D Kim; Thomas A Trikalinos; Mark J Sculpher; Joshua A Salomon; Lisa A Prosser; Douglas K Owens; David O Meltzer; Karen M Kuntz; Murray Krahn; David Feeny; Anirban Basu; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Gaussian process modeling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modeling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis.

Authors:  M D Stevenson; J Oakley; J B Chilcott
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Clinical applications of machine learning algorithms: beyond the black box.

Authors:  David S Watson; Jenny Krutzinna; Ian N Bruce; Christopher Em Griffiths; Iain B McInnes; Michael R Barnes; Luciano Floridi
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-03-12

Review 6.  The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine.

Authors:  Jianxing He; Sally L Baxter; Jie Xu; Jiming Xu; Xingtao Zhou; Kang Zhang
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment: Choosing among Statins in Primary Prevention.

Authors:  Tommi Tervonen; Huseyin Naci; Gert van Valkenhoef; Anthony E Ades; Aris Angelis; Hans L Hillege; Douwe Postmus
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample: A Fast, Nonparametric Regression-Based Method.

Authors:  Mark Strong; Jeremy E Oakley; Alan Brennan; Penny Breeze
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Dynamic treatment selection and modification for personalised blood pressure therapy using a Markov decision process model: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Sung Eun Choi; Margaret L Brandeau; Sanjay Basu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  From hype to reality: data science enabling personalized medicine.

Authors:  Holger Fröhlich; Rudi Balling; Niko Beerenwinkel; Oliver Kohlbacher; Santosh Kumar; Thomas Lengauer; Marloes H Maathuis; Yves Moreau; Susan A Murphy; Teresa M Przytycka; Michael Rebhan; Hannes Röst; Andreas Schuppert; Matthias Schwab; Rainer Spang; Daniel Stekhoven; Jimeng Sun; Andreas Weber; Daniel Ziemek; Blaz Zupan
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  1 in total

1.  Metamodeling for Policy Simulations with Multivariate Outcomes.

Authors:  Huaiyang Zhong; Margaret L Brandeau; Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi; Jianing Wang; Shayla Nolen; Liesl Hagan; William W Thompson; Sabrina A Assoumou; Benjamin P Linas; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 2.749

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.