Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
134 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
10 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Safe and Interpretable Estimation of Optimal Treatment Regimes (2310.15333v2)

Published 23 Oct 2023 in cs.LG, stat.AP, and stat.ME

Abstract: Recent statistical and reinforcement learning methods have significantly advanced patient care strategies. However, these approaches face substantial challenges in high-stakes contexts, including missing data, inherent stochasticity, and the critical requirements for interpretability and patient safety. Our work operationalizes a safe and interpretable framework to identify optimal treatment regimes. This approach involves matching patients with similar medical and pharmacological characteristics, allowing us to construct an optimal policy via interpolation. We perform a comprehensive simulation study to demonstrate the framework's ability to identify optimal policies even in complex settings. Ultimately, we operationalize our approach to study regimes for treating seizures in critically ill patients. Our findings strongly support personalized treatment strategies based on a patient's medical history and pharmacological features. Notably, we identify that reducing medication doses for patients with mild and brief seizure episodes while adopting aggressive treatment for patients in intensive care unit experiencing intense seizures leads to more favorable outcomes.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (93)
  1. The use and yield of continuous eeg in critically ill patients: a comparative study of three centers. Clinical Neurophysiology, 128(4):570–578.
  2. A survey of inverse reinforcement learning: Challenges, methods and progress. Artificial Intelligence, 297:103500.
  3. Learning optimal dynamic treatment regimes using causal tree methods in medicine. In Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, pages 146–171. PMLR.
  4. Boggs, J. (2002). Seizures and organ failure. In Seizures, pages 71–83. Springer.
  5. Inference for non-regular parameters in optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Statistical methods in medical research, 19(3):317–343.
  6. Q-learning: Theory and applications. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 7:279–301.
  7. Cretin, B. (2021). Treatment of seizures in older patients with dementia. Drugs & Aging, 38(3):181–192.
  8. The effect of propofol on haemodynamics: cardiac output, venous return, mean systemic filling pressure, and vascular resistances. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 116(6):784–789.
  9. On the strong universal consistency of nearest neighbor regression function estimates. The Annals of Statistics, 22(3):1371–1385.
  10. Epileptiform abnormalities in acute ischemic stroke: impact on clinical management and outcomes. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 39(6):446–452.
  11. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3):932–945.
  12. Uniform in bandwidth consistency of kernel-type function estimators.
  13. Tree-based batch mode reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6.
  14. Constructing dynamic treatment regimes over indefinite time horizons. Biometrika, 105(4):963–977.
  15. Antiepileptic drugs in critically ill patients. Critical Care, 22(1):1–12.
  16. Rate of uniform consistency for nonparametric estimates with functional variables. Journal of Statistical planning and inference, 140(2):335–352.
  17. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1587–1596. PMLR.
  18. Off-policy deep reinforcement learning without exploration. corr abs/1812.02900 (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.02900.
  19. Electrographic seizure burden and outcomes following pediatric status epilepticus. Epilepsy & Behavior, 101:106409.
  20. Q-learning with censored data. Annals of statistics, 40(1):529.
  21. Learning dynamic treatment strategies for coronary heart diseases by artificial intelligence: real-world data-driven study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 22(1):1–16.
  22. Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905.
  23. Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: Regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects (with discussion). Bayesian Analysis, 15(3):965–1056.
  24. Hill, A. V. (1910). The possible effects of the aggregation of the molecules of hemoglobin on its dissociation curves. j. physiol., 40:iv–vii.
  25. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political analysis, 15(3):199–236.
  26. Dyntxregime: Methods for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. R package version, 49:3.
  27. Reinforcement learning for sepsis treatment: A continuous action space solution. In Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, pages 631–647. PMLR.
  28. Ishwaran, H. (2015). The effect of splitting on random forests. Machine learning, 99:75–118.
  29. Glasgow coma scale.
  30. Jiang, H. (2019). Non-asymptotic uniform rates of consistency for k-nn regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 3999–4006.
  31. Uncertainty-driven imagination for continuous deep reinforcement learning. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 195–206. PMLR.
  32. Beyond reward: Offline preference-guided policy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16217.
  33. Data-driven knn estimation in nonparametric functional data analysis. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 153:176–188.
  34. How seizure detection by continuous electroencephalographic monitoring affects the prescribing of antiepileptic medications. Archives of Neurology, 66(6):723–728.
  35. Epileptiform activity in traumatic brain injury predicts post-traumatic epilepsy. Annals of Neurology, 83(4):858–862.
  36. Apache ii-a severity of disease classification system: Reply. Critical Care Medicine, 14(8):755.
  37. The effect of representation and knowledge on goal-directed exploration with reinforcement-learning algorithms. Machine Learning, 22:227–250.
  38. Towards safe mechanical ventilation treatment using deep offline reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 15696–15702.
  39. Uniform consistency of knn regressors for functional variables. Statistics & Probability Letters, 83(8):1863–1870.
  40. Conservative q-learning for offline reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1179–1191.
  41. Variable importance matching for causal inference. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1174–1184. PMLR.
  42. Risk of seizure and its clinical implication in the patients with cerebral metastasis from lung cancer. Acta neurochirurgica, 155(10):1833–1837.
  43. Li, K.-C. (1984). Consistency for cross-validated nearest neighbor estimates in nonparametric regression. The Annals of Statistics, pages 230–240.
  44. Differentiable logic policy for interpretable deep reinforcement learning: A study from an optimization perspective. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
  45. Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02971.
  46. Traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: underlying mechanisms leading to seizure. Seizure, 33:13–23.
  47. Finetuning from offline reinforcement learning: Challenges, trade-offs and practical solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17396.
  48. Sdrl: interpretable and data-efficient deep reinforcement learning leveraging symbolic planning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 2970–2977.
  49. Imputation-based q-learning for optimizing dynamic treatment regimes with right-censored survival outcome. Biometrics.
  50. Mataric, M. J. (1994). Reward functions for accelerated learning. In Machine learning proceedings 1994, pages 181–189. Elsevier.
  51. Matzkin, R. L. (2007). Nonparametric identification. Handbook of econometrics, 6:5307–5368.
  52. Seizures in elderly patients with dementia: epidemiology and management. Drugs & aging, 20:791–803.
  53. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602.
  54. Q-learning for estimating optimal dynamic treatment rules from observational data. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 40(4):629–645.
  55. Q-learning: Flexible learning about useful utilities. Statistics in Biosciences, 6:223–243.
  56. Estimating optimal dynamic regimes: Correcting bias under the null. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 37(1):126–146.
  57. Apache scoring as an indicator of mortality rate in icu patients: a cohort study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 85(3):416.
  58. Murphy, S. A. (2003). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 65(2):331–355.
  59. Murphy, S. A. (2005). A generalization error for q-learning.
  60. Methodological challenges in constructing effective treatment sequences for chronic psychiatric disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 32(2):257–262.
  61. A bayesian machine learning approach for optimizing dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523):1255–1267.
  62. Lehninger principles of biochemistry. Macmillan.
  63. The revival of the gini importance? Bioinformatics, 34(21):3711–3718.
  64. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In Icml, volume 1, page 2.
  65. Effects of epileptiform activity on discharge outcome in critically ill patients in the usa: a retrospective cross-sectional study. The Lancet Digital Health.
  66. Malts: Matching after learning to stretch. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(1):10952–10993.
  67. Post-acute symptomatic seizure (pass) clinic: a continuity of care model for patients impacted by continuous eeg monitoring. Epilepsia Open, 5(2):255–262.
  68. Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules. Annals of statistics, 39(2):1180.
  69. Ratkovic, M. T. (2019). Rehabilitating the regression : Honest and valid causal inference through machine learning.
  70. Challenges for reinforcement learning in healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.05612.
  71. Robins, J. M. (2000). Robust estimation in sequentially ignorable missing data and causal inference models. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, volume 1999, pages 6–10. Indianapolis, IN.
  72. Robins, J. M. (2004). Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions. In Proceedings of the Second Seattle Symposium in Biostatistics: analysis of correlated data, pages 189–326. Springer.
  73. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of educational Psychology, 66(5):688.
  74. The ictal–interictal continuum: to treat or not to treat (and how)? Neurocritical care, 29:3–8.
  75. Sävje, F. (2023). Causal inference with misspecified exposure mappings: separating definitions and assumptions. Biometrika, page asad019.
  76. Q-and a-learning methods for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 29(4):640.
  77. d3rlpy: An offline deep reinforcement learning library. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(315):1–20.
  78. Applied biopharmaceutics & pharmacokinetics, volume 264. Appleton & Lange Stamford.
  79. Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning: An evolutionary perspective. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 2(2):70–82.
  80. Penalized q-learning for dynamic treatment regimens. Statistica Sinica, 25(3):901.
  81. Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1):1.
  82. Burden of epileptiform activity predicts discharge neurologic outcomes in severe acute ischemic stroke. Neurocritical care, 32:697–706.
  83. Scaling active inference. arxiv. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10601.
  84. Volkow, N. D. (2020). Personalizing the treatment of substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(2):113–116.
  85. Critic regularized regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7768–7778.
  86. Weiss, J. N. (1997). The hill equation revisited: uses and misuses. The FASEB Journal, 11(11):835–841.
  87. Effect of epileptiform abnormality burden on neurologic outcome and antiepileptic drug management after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Clinical Neurophysiology, 129(11):2219–2227.
  88. Electrographic seizures and ictal–interictal continuum (iic) patterns in critically ill patients. Epilepsy & Behavior, 106:107037.
  89. Estimating optimal treatment regimes from a classification perspective. Stat, 1(1):103–114.
  90. Interpretable dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(524):1541–1549.
  91. New statistical learning methods for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(510):583–598.
  92. Constructing dynamic treatment regimes with shared parameters for censored data. Statistics in medicine, 39(9):1250–1263.
  93. Causal nearest neighbor rules for optimal treatment regimes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08451.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now