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。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

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:摘要直接讨论目标试验模拟、混杂校正与异质性治疗效应识别。

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
Dimitris Bertsimas
Hiroshi Nagata
Carol Gao
Junki Mizusawa
Yukihide Kanemitsu

R.O.A.D.:通向临床试验模拟的框架

研究问题
如何借助目标随机试验信息校正观察性队列,在模拟试验中处理混杂,并识别具有不同治疗效应的患者亚组?
方法与思路
作者先筛选符合资格的队列并匹配协变量及对照组基线预后,再校准处理组预后,随后训练最优决策树识别异质性。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称该框架同时处理观测与未观测混杂,并报告外部模型核验及原试验团队确认;这些是作者陈述,尚非独立验证。
阅读关注点
应核对随机试验信息如何参与校准、跨人群迁移的依据,以及外部模型核验能否支持未观测混杂已被消除。
阅读边界
这是 arXiv 预印本,同行评审及期刊接收未核实;摘要未给出完整识别条件,外部模型的一致性不能直接证明无混杂。

原文摘要

Observational studies provide the only evidence on the effectiveness of interventions when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are impractical due to cost, ethical concerns, or time constraints. While many methodologies aim to draw causal inferences from observational data, there is a growing trend to model observational study designs after RCTs, a strategy known as "target trial emulation." Despite its potential, causal inference through target trial emulation cannot fully address the confounding bias in real-world data due to the lack of randomization. In this work, we present a novel framework for target trial emulation that aims to overcome several key limitations, including confounding bias. The framework proceeds as follows: First, we apply the eligibility criteria of a specific trial to an observational cohort. We then "correct" this cohort by extracting a subset that matches both the distribution of covariates and the baseline prognosis of the control group in the target RCT. Next, we address unmeasured confounding by adjusting the prognosis estimates of the treated group to align with those observed in the trial. Following trial emulation, we go a step further by leveraging the emulated cohort to train optimal decision trees, to identify subgroups of patients with heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE). The absence of confounding is verified using two external models, and the validity of the treatment recommendations is independently confirmed by the team responsible for the original trial we emulate. To our knowledge, this is the first framework to successfully address both observed and unobserved confounding, a challenge that has historically limited the use of randomized trial emulation and causal inference. Additionally, our framework holds promise in advancing precision medicine by identifying patient subgroups that benefit most from specific treatments.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文