IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i7p923-936.html

A Machine-Learning Approach for Estimating Subgroup- and Individual-Level Treatment Effects: An Illustration Using the 65 Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Zia Sadique

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Richard Grieve

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Karla Diaz-Ordaz

    (Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

  • Paul Mouncey

    (Clinical Trials Unit, Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC), London, UK)

  • Francois Lamontagne

    (Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
    Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada)

  • Stephen O’Neill

    (Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

Abstract

Personalizing treatment recommendations or guidelines requires evidence about the heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Machine-learning (ML) approaches can explore HTE by considering many covariates, including complex interactions between them. Causal ML approaches can avoid overfitting, which arises when the same dataset is used to select covariate by treatment interaction terms as to make inferences and reduce reliance on the correct specification of fixed parametric models. We investigate causal forests (CF), a ML method based on modified decision trees that can estimate subgroup- and individual-level treatment effects, without requiring correct prespecification of the effect model. We consider CF alongside parametric approaches for estimating HTE, within the 65 Trial, which evaluates the effect of a permissive hypotension strategy versus usual care on 90-d mortality for critically ill patients aged 65 y or older with vasodilatory hypotension. Here, the CF approach provides similar estimates of treatment effectiveness for prespecified and post hoc subgroups to the parametric approach, and the results of a test for overall HTE show weak evidence of heterogeneity. The CF estimates of individual-level treatment effects, the expected effects of treatment for individuals in subpopulations defined by their covariates, suggest that the permissive hypotension strategy is expected to reduce 90-d mortality for 98.7% of patients but with 95% confidence intervals that include zero for 71.6% of patients. A ML approach is then used to assess the patient characteristics associated with these individual-level effects, and to help target future research that can identify those patient subgroups for whom the intervention is most effective. Highlights This article examines a causal machine-learning approach, causal forests (CF), for exploring the heterogeneity of treatment effects, without prespecifying a specific functional form. The CF approach is considered in the reanalysis of the 65 Trial and was found to provide similar estimates of subgroup effects to using a fixed parametric model. The CF approach also provides estimates of individual-level treatment effects that suggest that for most patients in the 65 Trial, the intervention is expected to reduce 90-d mortality but with wide levels of statistical uncertainty. The study illustrates how individual-level treatment effect estimates can be analyzed to generate hypotheses for further research about those patients who are likely to benefit most from an intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Zia Sadique & Richard Grieve & Karla Diaz-Ordaz & Paul Mouncey & Francois Lamontagne & Stephen O’Neill, 2022. "A Machine-Learning Approach for Estimating Subgroup- and Individual-Level Treatment Effects: An Illustration Using the 65 Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(7), pages 923-936, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:7:p:923-936
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221100717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221100717
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221100717?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. Noemi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Rosalba Radice & Zia Sadique & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2012. "Methods for Estimating Subgroup Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 750-763, November.
    2. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro‐Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self‐selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157, November.
    3. Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2007. "Value of Information on Preference Heterogeneity and Individualized Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 112-127, March.
    4. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    5. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    6. Hapfelmeier, A. & Ulm, K., 2013. "A new variable selection approach using Random Forests," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 50-69.
    7. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157.
    8. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    9. Xinzhou Guo & Xuming He, 2021. "Inference on Selected Subgroups in Clinical Trials," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(535), pages 1498-1506, July.
    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. Bolbocean, Corneliu & Anderson, Peter J. & Bartmann, Peter & Cheong, Jeanie L.Y. & Doyle, Lex W. & Johnson, Samantha & Marlow, Neil & Wolke, Dieter & Petrou, Stavros & O'Neill, Stephen, 2025. "A heterogeneity analysis of health-related quality of life in early adults born very preterm or very low birthweight across the sociodemographic spectrum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 380(C).

    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. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    2. Jasjeet Singh Sekhon & Richard D. Grieve, 2012. "A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 695-714, June.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Gomes, M & Grieve, R, 2011. "Estimating the Effects of Friendship Networks on Health Behaviors of Adolescents," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 11/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & Edmond S.‐W. Ng & James Carpenter & Simon G. Thompson, 2012. "Methods For Covariate Adjustment In Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis That Use Cluster Randomised Trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(9), pages 1101-1118, September.
    6. Noemi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Rosalba Radice & Zia Sadique & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2012. "Methods for Estimating Subgroup Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 750-763, November.
    7. Michael S. Willis & Andreas Nilsson & Cheryl A. Neslusan, 2025. "A Review of Heterogeneity in Comparative Economic Analysis, with Specific Considerations for the Decentralized US Setting and Patient-Centered Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 601-616, June.
    8. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    9. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    10. Elisa Gerten & Michael Beckmann & Elisa Gerten & Matthias Kräkel, 2022. "Information and Communication Technology, Hierarchy, and Job Design," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 189, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    11. Lin, Yuheng & Rambaccussing, Dooruj & Zhu, Yu, 2026. "Returns to college education of Chinese manufacturing employees: Who benefits more?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    13. Yu-Wen Wen & Yi-Wen Tsai & David Bin-Chia Wu & Pei-Fen Chen, 2013. "The Impact of Outliers on Net-Benefit Regression Model in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-9, June.
    14. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    15. Mogstad, Magne & Torgovitsky, Alexander, 2024. "Instrumental variables with unobserved heterogeneity in treatment effects," Handbook of Labor Economics,, Elsevier.
    16. Andrew H. Briggs, 2022. "Healing the past, reimagining the present, investing in the future: What should be the role of race as a proxy covariate in health economics informed health care policy?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2115-2119, October.
    17. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Elena Conde-Montero & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, May.
    18. Olivier De Groote & Koen Declercq, 2021. "Tracking and specialization of high schools: Heterogeneous effects of school choice," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 898-916, November.
    19. Lina Zhang & David T. Frazier & D.S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2025. "Decomposing identification gains and evaluating instrument identification power for partially identified average treatment effects," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(7), pages 915-938, August.
    20. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:7:p:923-936. 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.