IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v26y2024i1p80-94.html

Interpretable Policies and the Price of Interpretability in Hypertension Treatment Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia

    (H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

  • Lauren N. Steimle

    (H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

  • Wesley J. Marrero

    (Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755)

  • Jeremy B. Sussman

    (Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

Problem definition : Effective hypertension management is critical to reducing the consequences of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, a leading cause of death in the United States. Clinical guidelines for hypertension can be enhanced using decision-analytic approaches capable of capturing complexities in treatment planning. However, model-generated recommendations may be uninterpretable/unintuitive, limiting their clinical acceptability. We address this challenge by investigating interpretable treatment plans. Methodology/results : We formulate interpretable treatment plans as Markov decision processes (MDPs) and analyze the problems of optimizing monotone policies, which prohibit decreasing treatment intensity for sicker patients, and class-ordered monotone policies , which generalize monotone policies. We establish that both policies depend on initial state distributions and that optimal monotone policies can be generated tractably for many treatment planning problems. Next, we propose exact formulations for optimizing interpretable policies broadly. Then, we analyze the price of interpretability , proving that the class-ordered monotone policy’s price of interpretability does not exceed the monotone policy’s price of interpretability. Finally, we formulate and evaluate MDPs for hypertension treatment planning using a large nationally representative data set of the U.S. population. We compare the structure and performance of optimal monotone policies and class-ordered monotone policies with optimal MDP-based policies and current clinical guidelines. At the patient level, optimal MDP-based policies may be unintuitive, recommending more aggressive treatment for healthier patients than sicker patients. Conversely, monotone policies and class-ordered monotone policies never deescalate treatment, reflecting clinical intuition. Across 66.5 million patients, optimized monotone policies and class-ordered monotone policies outperform clinical guidelines, saving over 3,246 quality-adjusted life years per 100,000 patients, with both policies paying a low price of interpretability. Sensitivity analysis illustrates that monotone policies and class-ordered monotone policies are robust to various definitions of “interpretability.” Managerial implications : Interpretable policies can be tractably optimized, drastically outperform existing guidelines, and perform near optimally—potentially increasing the acceptability of decision-analytic approaches in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia & Lauren N. Steimle & Wesley J. Marrero & Jeremy B. Sussman, 2024. "Interpretable Policies and the Price of Interpretability in Hypertension Treatment Planning," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 80-94, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:26:y:2024:i:1:p:80-94
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2021.0373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.0373
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2021.0373?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina E. Saville & Honora K. Smith & Katarzyna Bijak, 2019. "Operational research techniques applied throughout cancer care services: a review," Health Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 52-73, January.
    2. Brian T. Denton & Murat Kurt & Nilay D. Shah & Sandra C. Bryant & Steven A. Smith, 2009. "Optimizing the Start Time of Statin Therapy for Patients with Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 351-367, May.
    3. R. Bellman & I. Glicksberg & O. Gross, 1955. "On the Optimal Inventory Equation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 83-104, October.
    4. Karen Hicklin & Julie S. Ivy & Fay Cobb Payton & Meera Viswanathan & Evan Myers, 2018. "Exploring the Value of Waiting During Labor," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 334-353, September.
    5. Sait Tunç & Oguzhan Alagoz & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2022. "A new perspective on breast cancer diagnostic guidelines to reduce overdiagnosis," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(5), pages 2361-2378, May.
    6. Mason, J.E. & Denton, B.T. & Shah, N.D. & Smith, S.A., 2014. "Optimizing the simultaneous management of blood pressure and cholesterol for type 2 diabetes patients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 727-738.
    7. William S. Lovejoy, 1987. "Some Monotonicity Results for Partially Observed Markov Decision Processes," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 736-743, October.
    8. Anthony Bonifonte & Turgay Ayer & Benjamin Haaland, 2022. "An Analytics Approach to Guide Randomized Controlled Trials in Hypertension Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6634-6647, September.
    9. M. Reza Skandari & Steven M. Shechter, 2021. "Patient-Type Bayes-Adaptive Treatment Plans," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 574-598, March.
    10. Mucahit Cevik & Turgay Ayer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Brian L. Sprague, 2018. "Analysis of Mammography Screening Policies under Resource Constraints," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(5), pages 949-972, May.
    11. Turgay Ayer & Can Zhang & Anthony Bonifonte & Anne C. Spaulding & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2019. "Prioritizing Hepatitis C Treatment in U.S. Prisons," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 853-873, May.
    12. Wesley J. Marrero & Mariel S. Lavieri & Jeremy B. Sussman, 2021. "Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, March.
    13. Lauren N. Steimle & David L. Kaufman & Brian T. Denton, 2021. "Multi-model Markov decision processes," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(10), pages 1124-1139, October.
    14. Muge Capan & Anahita Khojandi & Brian T. Denton & Kimberly D. Williams & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal & Murat Kurt & Jennifer Mason Lobo & Mark S. Roberts & Greg Zaric & Shengfan Zhang & J. Sanford, 2017. "From Data to Improved Decisions: Operations Research in Healthcare Delivery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 849-859, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel F. Otero-Leon & Mariel S. Lavieri & Brian T. Denton & Jeremy Sussman & Rodney A. Hayward, 2023. "Monitoring policy in the context of preventive treatment of cardiovascular disease," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 93-116, March.
    2. Ilbin Lee, 2024. "Is Separately Modeling Subpopulations Beneficial for Sequential Decision-Making?," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 72(6), pages 2595-2611, November.
    3. Elisa F. Long & Gilberto Montibeller & Jun Zhuang, 2022. "Health Decision Analysis: Evolution, Trends, and Emerging Topics," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 255-264, December.
    4. Esmaeil Keyvanshokooh & Mohammad Zhalechian & Cong Shi & Mark P. Van Oyen & Pooyan Kazemian, 2025. "Contextual Learning with Online Convex Optimization: Theory and Application to Medical Decision-Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(12), pages 10442-10464, December.
    5. del Campo, Cristina & Bai, Jiaru & Keller, L. Robin, 2025. "Modeling cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequencing," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Robert Kraig Helmeczi & Can Kavaklioglu & Mucahit Cevik & Davood Pirayesh Neghab, 2023. "A multi-objective constrained partially observable Markov decision process model for breast cancer screening," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1-42, June.
    7. Chou-Chun Wu & Sze-chuan Suen, 2022. "Optimizing diabetes screening frequencies for at-risk groups," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Wesley J. Marrero & Mariel S. Lavieri & Jeremy B. Sussman, 2021. "Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, March.
    9. Gong, Jue & Liu, Shan, 2023. "Partially observable collaborative model for optimizing personalized treatment selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(3), pages 1409-1419.
    10. Alireza Boloori & Soroush Saghafian & Harini A. Chakkera & Curtiss B. Cook, 2020. "Data-Driven Management of Post-transplant Medications: An Ambiguous Partially Observable Markov Decision Process Approach," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1066-1087, September.
    11. Diana M. Negoescu & Kostas Bimpikis & Margaret L. Brandeau & Dan A. Iancu, 2018. "Dynamic Learning of Patient Response Types: An Application to Treating Chronic Diseases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3469-3488, August.
    12. Guang Cheng & Jingui Xie & Zhichao Zheng & Haidong Luo & Oon Cheong Ooi, 2025. "Extubation Decisions with Predictive Information for Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the ICU," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(7), pages 6069-6091, July.
    13. Anthony Bonifonte & Turgay Ayer & Benjamin Haaland, 2022. "An Analytics Approach to Guide Randomized Controlled Trials in Hypertension Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6634-6647, September.
    14. Boloori, Alireza & Saghafian, Soroush & Chakkera, Harini A. A. & Cook, Curtiss B., 2017. "Data-Driven Management of Post-transplant Medications: An APOMDP Approach," Working Paper Series rwp17-036, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Jingyu Zhang & Brian T. Denton & Hari Balasubramanian & Nilay D. Shah & Brant A. Inman, 2012. "Optimization of Prostate Biopsy Referral Decisions," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 529-547, October.
    16. Kotas, Jakob & Ghate, Archis, 2018. "Bayesian learning of dose–response parameters from a cohort under response-guided dosing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 328-343.
    17. Sean Berry & Berk Görgülü & Sait Tunc & Mucahit Cevik, 2026. "Interpretable machine learning for personalized breast cancer screening recommendations," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-23, March.
    18. Nisha Nataraj & Julie Simmons Ivy & Fay Cobb Payton & Joseph Norman, 2018. "Diabetes and the hospitalized patient," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 534-553, December.
    19. Mason, J.E. & Denton, B.T. & Shah, N.D. & Smith, S.A., 2014. "Optimizing the simultaneous management of blood pressure and cholesterol for type 2 diabetes patients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 727-738.
    20. Wooseung Jang & J. George Shanthikumar, 2002. "Stochastic allocation of inspection capacity to competitive processes," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 78-94, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:26:y:2024:i:1:p:80-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.