IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i4p450-460.html

Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Weyant

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Margaret L. Brandeau

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background Personalizing medical treatments based on patient-specific risks and preferences can improve patient health. However, models to support personalized treatment decisions are often complex and difficult to interpret, limiting their clinical application. Methods We present a new method, using machine learning to create meta-models, for simplifying complex models for personalizing medical treatment decisions. We consider simple interpretable models, interpretable ensemble models, and noninterpretable ensemble models. We use variable selection with a penalty for patient-specific risks and/or preferences that are difficult, risky, or costly to obtain. We interpret the meta-models to the extent permitted by their model architectures. We illustrate our method by applying it to simplify a previously developed model for personalized selection of antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia. Results The best simplified interpretable, interpretable ensemble, and noninterpretable ensemble models contained at most half the number of patient-specific risks and preferences compared with the original model. The simplified models achieved 60.5% (95% credible interval [crI]: 55.2–65.4), 60.8% (95% crI: 55.5–65.7), and 83.8% (95% crI: 80.8–86.6), respectively, of the net health benefit of the original model (quality-adjusted life-years gained). Important variables in all models were similar and made intuitive sense. Computation time for the meta-models was orders of magnitude less than for the original model. Limitations The simplified models share the limitations of the original model (e.g., potential biases). Conclusions Our meta-modeling method is disease- and model- agnostic and can be used to simplify complex models for personalization, allowing for variable selection in addition to improved model interpretability and computational performance. Simplified models may be more likely to be adopted in clinical settings and can help improve equity in patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Weyant & Margaret L. Brandeau, 2022. "Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(4), pages 450-460, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:4:p:450-460
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211037921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211037921
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211037921?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. Koen Degeling & Maarten J. IJzerman & Mariel S. Lavieri & Mark Strong & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2020. "Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 348-363, April.
    2. M. D. Stevenson & J. Oakley & J. B. Chilcott, 2004. "Gaussian Process Modeling in Conjunction with Individual Patient Simulation Modeling: A Case Study Describing the Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for the Treatment of Established Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 89-100, January.
    3. Hawre Jalal & Bryan Dowd & François Sainfort & Karen M. Kuntz, 2013. "Linear Regression Metamodeling as a Tool to Summarize and Present Simulation Model Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(7), pages 880-890, October.
    4. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    5. Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor & Su, Bin & Meng, Qun, 2017. "A simultaneous calibration and parameter ranking method for building energy models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 657-666.
    6. Christopher Weyant & Margaret L. Brandeau & Sanjay Basu, 2019. "Personalizing Medical Treatment Decisions: Integrating Meta-analytic Treatment Comparisons with Patient-Specific Risks and Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 998-1009, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huaiyang Zhong & Margaret L. Brandeau & Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi & Jianing Wang & Shayla Nolen & Liesl Hagan & William W. Thompson & Sabrina A. Assoumou & Benjamin P. Linas & Joshua A. Salomon, 2022. "Metamodeling for Policy Simulations with Multivariate Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(7), pages 872-884, October.

    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. Huaiyang Zhong & Margaret L. Brandeau & Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi & Jianing Wang & Shayla Nolen & Liesl Hagan & William W. Thompson & Sabrina A. Assoumou & Benjamin P. Linas & Joshua A. Salomon, 2022. "Metamodeling for Policy Simulations with Multivariate Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(7), pages 872-884, October.
    2. Aditya Sai & Carolina Vivas-Valencia & Thomas F. Imperiale & Nan Kong, 2019. "Multiobjective Calibration of Disease Simulation Models Using Gaussian Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 540-552, July.
    3. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    4. Wei Fang & Zhenru Wang & Michael B. Giles & Chris H. Jackson & Nicky J. Welton & Christophe Andrieu & Howard Thom, 2022. "Multilevel and Quasi Monte Carlo Methods for the Calculation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 168-181, February.
    5. Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Hawre Jalal & Fernando Alarid-Escudero, 2025. "Microsimulation Estimates of Decision Uncertainty and Value of Information Are Biased but Consistent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(2), pages 127-142, February.
    6. Østergård, Torben & Jensen, Rasmus Lund & Maagaard, Steffen Enersen, 2018. "A comparison of six metamodeling techniques applied to building performance simulations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 89-103.
    7. Mohammad K. Najjar & Eduardo Linhares Qualharini & Ahmed W. A. Hammad & Dieter Boer & Assed Haddad, 2019. "Framework for a Systematic Parametric Analysis to Maximize Energy Output of PV Modules Using an Experimental Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.
    8. Oakley, Jeremy E. & Brennan, Alan & Tappenden, Paul & Chilcott, Jim, 2010. "Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 468-477, May.
    9. David Glynn & Susan Griffin & Nils Gutacker & Simon Walker, 2024. "Methods to Quantify the Importance of Parameters for Model Updating and Distributional Adaptation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 802-810, October.
    10. Prada, A. & Gasparella, A. & Baggio, P., 2018. "On the performance of meta-models in building design optimization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 814-826.
    11. Yuan, Jianjuan & Huang, Ke & Lu, Shilei & Zhang, Ji & Han, Zhao & Zhou, Zhihua, 2022. "Analysis of influencing factors on heat consumption of large residential buildings with different occupancy rates-Tianjin case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PC).
    12. Jason Madan & Anthony E. Ades & Malcolm Price & Kathryn Maitland & Julie Jemutai & Paul Revill & Nicky J. Welton, 2014. "Strategies for Efficient Computation of the Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 327-342, April.
    13. Christopher Weyant & Margaret L. Brandeau, 2022. "Partial Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Adverse Effects and Possible Solutions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 8-16, January.
    14. Kleijnen, J.P.C. & van Beers, W.C.M., 2018. "Prediction for Big Data through Kriging : Small Sequential and One-Shot Designs," Discussion Paper 2018-022, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Afschin Gandjour, 2010. "Investment in quality improvement: how to maximize the return," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 31-42, January.
    16. Laura Flight & Steven Julious & Alan Brennan & Susan Todd, 2022. "Expected Value of Sample Information to Guide the Design of Group Sequential Clinical Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(4), pages 461-473, May.
    17. Radaideh, Majdi I. & Kozlowski, Tomasz, 2020. "Surrogate modeling of advanced computer simulations using deep Gaussian processes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    18. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan, 2014. "Estimating Multiparameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information from a Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 311-326, April.
    19. Bas Groot Koerkamp & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2011. "The Combined Analysis of Uncertainty and Patient Heterogeneity in Medical Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 650-661, July.
    20. Stijntje W. Dijk & Eline Krijkamp & Natalia Kunst & Jeremy A. Labrecque & Cary P. Gross & Aradhana Pandit & Chia-Ping Lu & Loes E. Visser & John B. Wong & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2024. "Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(5), pages 512-528, July.

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:4:p:450-460. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.