Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 173 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 54 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 77 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 187 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 440 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Adaptive Weight Learning for Multiple Outcome Optimization With Continuous Treatment (2402.11092v1)

Published 16 Feb 2024 in stat.ME, math.ST, and stat.TH

Abstract: To promote precision medicine, individualized treatment regimes (ITRs) are crucial for optimizing the expected clinical outcome based on patient-specific characteristics. However, existing ITR research has primarily focused on scenarios with categorical treatment options and a single outcome. In reality, clinicians often encounter scenarios with continuous treatment options and multiple, potentially competing outcomes, such as medicine efficacy and unavoidable toxicity. To balance these outcomes, a proper weight is necessary, which should be learned in a data-driven manner that considers both patient preference and clinician expertise. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm for developing individualized treatment regimes (ITRs) that incorporate continuous treatment options and multiple outcomes, utilizing observational data. Our approach assumes that clinicians are optimizing individualized patient utilities with sub-optimal treatment decisions that are at least better than random assignment. Treatment assignment is assumed to directly depend on the true underlying utility of the treatment rather than patient characteristics. The proposed method simultaneously estimates the weighting of composite outcomes and the decision-making process, allowing for construction of individualized treatment regimes with continuous doses. The proposed estimators can be used for inference and variable selection, facilitating the identification of informative treatment assignments and preference-associated variables. We evaluate the finite sample performance of our proposed method via simulation studies and apply it to a real data application of radiation oncology analysis.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (19)
  1. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning, page 1, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  2. Braun, T. M. (2002). The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the crm to phase i trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clinical Trials, 23(3):240–256.
  3. Braun, T. M. (2006). Bayesian dose-finding in phase i/ii clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios. Biometrics, 62(3):777–840.
  4. Incorporating patient preferences into estimation of optimal individualized treatment rules. Biometrics, 74(1):18–26.
  5. Personalized dose finding using outcome weighted learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(516):1509–1521. PMID: 28255189.
  6. Gunantara, N. (2018). A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications. Cogent Engineering, 5(1):1502242.
  7. Interactive model building for q-learning. Biometrika, 101(4):831–847.
  8. Tree-based methods for individualized treatment regimes. biometrika. 102(3):501–514.
  9. Estimation and optimization of composite outcomes. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(1).
  10. Montesano, A. (1997). Pareto’s analysis of efficiency and its interpretation. History of Economic Ideas, 5(3):7–18.
  11. Murphy, S. A. (2003). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 65(2):331–355.
  12. Marginal mean models for dynamic regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456):1410–1423.
  13. Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules. The Annals of Statistics, 39(2):1180 – 1210.
  14. Maximum margin planning. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, page 729–736, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  15. Richard, H. (2016). Precision medicine. Nature, S49(537).
  16. Rubin, D. B. (1980). Randomization analysis of experimental data: The fisher randomization test comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(371):591–593.
  17. Stochastic tree search for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116(533):421–432.
  18. Non-greedy tree-based learning for estimating global optimal dynamic treatment decision rules with continuous treatment dosage.
  19. Survival augmented patient preference incorporated reinforcement learning to evaluate tailoring variables for personalized healthcare. Stats, 4(4):776–792.
Citations (1)

Summary

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

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 tweet and received 0 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: