IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i7p756-769.html

Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Yingying Zhang

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Noemi Kreif

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK
    Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, USA)

  • Vijay S. GC

    (School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, UK)

  • Andrea Manca

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

Abstract

Background Recent developments in causal inference and machine learning (ML) allow for the estimation of individualized treatment effects (ITEs), which reveal whether treatment effectiveness varies according to patients’ observed covariates. ITEs can be used to stratify health policy decisions according to individual characteristics and potentially achieve greater population health. Little is known about the appropriateness of available ML methods for use in health technology assessment. Methods In this scoping review, we evaluate ML methods available for estimating ITEs, aiming to help practitioners assess their suitability in health technology assessment. We present a taxonomy of ML approaches, categorized by key challenges in health technology assessment using observational data, including handling time-varying confounding and time-to event data and quantifying uncertainty. Results We found a wide range of algorithms for simpler settings with baseline confounding and continuous or binary outcomes. Not many ML algorithms can handle time-varying or unobserved confounding, and at the time of writing, no ML algorithm was capable of estimating ITEs for time-to-event outcomes while accounting for time-varying confounding. Many of the ML algorithms that estimate ITEs in longitudinal settings do not formally quantify uncertainty around the point estimates. Limitations This scoping review may not cover all relevant ML methods and algorithms as they are continuously evolving. Conclusions Existing ML methods available for ITE estimation are limited in handling important challenges posed by observational data when used for cost-effectiveness analysis, such as time-to-event outcomes, time-varying and hidden confounding, or the need to estimate sampling uncertainty around the estimates. Implications ML methods are promising but need further development before they can be used to estimate ITEs for health technology assessments. Highlights Estimating individualized treatment effects (ITEs) using observational data and machine learning (ML) can support personalized treatment advice and help deliver more customized information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health technologies. ML methods for ITE estimation are mostly designed for handling confounding at baseline but not time-varying or unobserved confounding. The few models that account for time-varying confounding are designed for continuous or binary outcomes, not time-to-event outcomes. Not all ML methods for estimating ITEs can quantify the uncertainty of their predictions. Future work on developing ML that addresses the concerns summarized in this review is needed before these methods can be widely used in clinical and health technology assessment–like decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Yingying Zhang & Noemi Kreif & Vijay S. GC & Andrea Manca, 2024. "Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(7), pages 756-769, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:7:p:756-769
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241263356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241263356
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241263356?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. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.
    3. Eline M. Krijkamp & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Eva A. Enns & Hawre J. Jalal & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2018. "Microsimulation Modeling for Health Decision Sciences Using R: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 400-422, April.
    4. Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2007. "Value of Information on Preference Heterogeneity and Individualized Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 112-127, March.
    5. Martin J. Buxton & Michael F. Drummond & Ben A. Van Hout & Richard L. Prince & Trevor A. Sheldon & Thomas Szucs & Muriel Vray, 1997. "Modelling in Ecomomic Evaluation: An Unavoidable Fact of Life," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 217-227, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Anna Heath & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2022. "Prioritizing Research in an Era of Personalized Medicine: The Potential Value of Unexplained Heterogeneity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 649-660, July.
    3. Koen Degeling & Jonathan Karnon & Michiel Ven & Alan Brennan & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2025. "Discrete Event Simulation in R using the ‘Simmer’ Package for Health Economic Modelling: A Tutorial and Illustration in Colon Cancer," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 961-975, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Eline Krijkamp & Eva A. Enns & Alan Yang & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Petros Pechlivanoglou & Hawre Jalal, 2023. "A Tutorial on Time-Dependent Cohort State-Transition Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(1), pages 21-41, January.
    10. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    11. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    12. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Jodi Gray, 2012. "A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 501-510, August.
    13. Dominic Hodgkin & Joanna Volpe‐Vartanian & Elizabeth L. Merrick & Constance M. Horgan & Andrew A. Nierenberg & Richard G. Frank & Sue Lee, 2012. "Customization in prescribing for bipolar disorder," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 653-668, June.
    14. Mei-Chin Su & Yi-Jen Wang & Tzeng-Ji Chen & Shiao-Hui Chiu & Hsiao-Ting Chang & Mei-Shu Huang & Li-Hui Hu & Chu-Chuan Li & Su-Ju Yang & Jau-Ching Wu & Yu-Chun Chen, 2020. "Assess the Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of LACE and HOSPITAL Re-Admission Prediction Models as a Risk Management Tool for Home Care Patients: An Evaluation Study of a Medical Center Affiliated Home Care Unit in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Charles F. Manski, 2022. "Patient‐centered appraisal of race‐free clinical risk assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2109-2114, October.
    16. Grieve, Richard & Hutton, John & Green, Colin, 2003. "Selecting methods for the prediction of future events in cost-effectiveness models: a decision-framework and example from the cardiovascular field," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 311-324, June.
    17. Cookson, Richard & Hutton, John, 2003. "Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 167-178, February.
    18. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Cleemput, Irina & Kesteloot, Katrien & DeGeest, Sabina, 2002. "A review of the literature on the economics of noncompliance. Room for methodological improvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 65-94, January.

    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:44:y:2024:i:7:p:756-769. 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.