Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Apr 1;39(2):1180-1210.
doi: 10.1214/10-AOS864.

PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES FOR INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT RULES

Min Qian  1 , Susan A Murphy
Affiliations

PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES FOR INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT RULES

Min Qian et al. Ann Stat. .

Abstract

Because many illnesses show heterogeneous response to treatment, there is increasing interest in individualizing treatment to patients [11]. An individualized treatment rule is a decision rule that recommends treatment according to patient characteristics. We consider the use of clinical trial data in the construction of an individualized treatment rule leading to highest mean response. This is a difficult computational problem because the objective function is the expectation of a weighted indicator function that is non-concave in the parameters. Furthermore there are frequently many pretreatment variables that may or may not be useful in constructing an optimal individualized treatment rule yet cost and interpretability considerations imply that only a few variables should be used by the individualized treatment rule. To address these challenges we consider estimation based on l(1) penalized least squares. This approach is justified via a finite sample upper bound on the difference between the mean response due to the estimated individualized treatment rule and the mean response due to the optimal individualized treatment rule.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Plots for: the conditional mean function Q0(X; A) (left), Q0(X; A) and the associated best wavelet fit when Jn = 8 (middle), and Q0(X; A) and the associated best wavelet fit when Jn = 128 (right) (example 4).
Fig 2
Fig 2
Comparison of the l1-PLS based method with the OLS method and the PP method (examples 1 – 4): Plots for medians and median absolute deviations (MAD) of the Value of the estimated decision rules (top panels) and the number of variables (terms) needed for treatment assignment (including the main treatment effect term, bottom panels) over 1000 samples versus sample size on the log scale. The black dash-dotted line in each plot on the first row denotes the Value of the optimal treatment rule, V (d0), for each example. (n = 32; 64; 128; 256; 512; 1024. The corresponding numbers of basis functions in example 4 are Jn = 8; 16; 32; 64; 64; 128).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bartlett PL, Jordan ML, McAuliffe JD. Convexity, classification, and risk bounds. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2006;135(3):311–334.
    1. Bartlett PL. Fast rates for estimation error and oracle inequalities for model selection. Econometric Theory. 2008;24(2):545–552.
    1. Bickel PJ, Ritov Y, Tsybakov AB. Simultaneous analysis of lasso and dantzig selector. The Annals of Statistics. 2009;37(4):1705–1732.
    1. Bunea F, Tsybakov AB, Wegkamp MH. Sparsity oracle inequalities for the Lasso. Electronic Journal of Statistics. 2007;1:169–194.
    1. Cai T, Tian L, Lloyd-Jones DM, Wei LJ. Evaluating Subject-level Incremental Values of New Markers for Risk Classification Rule. Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 91 2008a - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources