跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确利用观察数据、匹配和治疗价值函数学习个体化治疗规则,并讨论混杂,直接对应因果推断。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Peng Wu
Donglin Zeng
Yuanjia Wang

利用电子健康记录优化个体化治疗策略的匹配学习

研究问题
如何利用观察性的电子健康记录学习个体化治疗规则,并在治疗选择存在混杂及结果类型多样时评估替代治疗反应?
方法与思路
作者提出基于匹配的 M-learning,以匹配价值函数比较配对个体,替代常用逆概率加权,并兼容多种治疗结果类型。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称建立 Fisher 一致性与收敛率,并在特定模拟情形下表现较好,另应用于二型糖尿病个体化二线治疗选择。
阅读关注点
应核对匹配距离、治疗规则的识别条件、价值函数及理论假设,尤其检查涉及未测混杂的模拟设定和结论范围。
阅读边界
仅据稿件版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;特定模拟中的未测混杂表现不能证明普遍消除混杂,具体识别条件未说明。

原文摘要

Current guidelines for treatment decision making largely rely on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying average treatment effects. They may be inadequate to make individualized treatment decisions in real-world settings. Large-scale electronic health records (EHR) provide opportunities to fulfill the goals of personalized medicine and learn individualized treatment rules (ITRs) depending on patient-specific characteristics from real-world patient data. In this work, we tackle challenges with EHRs and propose a machine learning approach based on matching (M-learning) to estimate optimal ITRs from EHRs. This new learning method performs matching instead of inverse probability weighting as commonly used in many existing methods for estimating ITRs to more accurately assess individuals' treatment responses to alternative treatments and alleviate confounding. Matching-based value functions are proposed to compare matched pairs under a unified framework, where various types of outcomes for measuring treatment response (including continuous, ordinal, and discrete outcomes) can easily be accommodated. We establish the Fisher consistency and convergence rate of M-learning. Through extensive simulation studies, we show that M-learning outperforms existing methods when propensity scores are misspecified or when unmeasured confounders are present in certain scenarios. Lastly, we apply M-learning to estimate optimal personalized second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes patients to achieve better glycemic control or reduce major complications using EHRs from New York Presbyterian Hospital.

笔记与分组