Journal of Data Science logo


Login Register

  1. Home
  2. Issues
  3. Volume 22, Issue 4 (2024)
  4. Identification of Optimal Combined Moder ...

Journal of Data Science

Submit your article Information
  • Article info
  • More
    Article info

Identification of Optimal Combined Moderators for Time to Relapse
Volume 22, Issue 4 (2024), pp. 469–485
Bang Wang   Yu Cheng ORCID icon link to view author Yu Cheng details   Michele D. Levine  

Authors

 
Placeholder
https://doi.org/10.6339/23-JDS1107
Pub. online: 23 June 2023      Type: Statistical Data Science      Open accessOpen Access

Received
28 August 2022
Accepted
29 May 2023
Published
23 June 2023

Abstract

Identifying treatment effect modifiers (i.e., moderators) plays an essential role in improving treatment efficacy when substantial treatment heterogeneity exists. However, studies are often underpowered for detecting treatment effect modifiers, and exploratory analyses that examine one moderator per statistical model often yield spurious interactions. Therefore, in this work, we focus on creating an intuitive and readily implementable framework to facilitate the discovery of treatment effect modifiers and to make treatment recommendations for time-to-event outcomes. To minimize the impact of a misspecified main effect and avoid complex modeling, we construct the framework by matching the treated with the controls and modeling the conditional average treatment effect via regressing the difference in the observed outcomes of a matched pair on the averaged moderators. Inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting is used to handle censored observations. As matching is the foundation of the proposed methods, we explore different matching metrics and recommend the use of Mahalanobis distance when both continuous and categorical moderators are present. After matching, the proposed framework can be flexibly combined with popular variable selection and prediction methods such as linear regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso), and random forest to create different combinations of potential moderators. The optimal combination is determined by the out-of-bag prediction error and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in making correct treatment recommendations. We compare the performance of various combined moderators through extensive simulations and the analysis of real trial data. Our approach can be easily implemented using existing R packages, resulting in a straightforward optimal combined moderator to make treatment recommendations.

Supplementary material

 Supplementary Material
Some additional simulation results and a compressed folder with the code to simulate the settings with 5 moderators (5M), implement our proposed methods, and some existing methods are provided as the online Supplementary Material.

References

 
Breiman L (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45: 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
 
Chen S, Tian L, Cai T, Yu M (2017). A general statistical framework for subgroup identification and comparative treatment scoring. Biometrics, 73(4): 1199–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12676
 
Chin Fatt CR, Jha MK, Cooper CM, Fonzo G, South C, Grannemann B, et al. (2020). Effect of intrinsic patterns of functional brain connectivity in moderating antidepressant treatment response in major depression. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(2): 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18070870
 
Cox DR (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Methodological, 34(2): 187–202.
 
Cui Y, Zhu R, Kosorok M (2017). Tree based weighted learning for estimating individualized treatment rules with censored data. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 11(2): 3927–3953.
 
Goldberg Y, Kosorok MR (2012). Q-learning with censored data. The Annals of Statistics, 40(1): 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOS968
 
Hildebrandt T, Michaeledes A, Mayhew M, Greif R, Sysko R, Toro-Ramos T, et al. (2020). Randomized controlled trial comparing health coach-delivered smartphone-guided self-help with standard care for adults with binge eating. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(2): 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19020184
 
Ho D, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2011). Matchit: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(8): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i08
 
Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3): 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl013
 
Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB (2007). Random survival forests for R. R News, 7(2): 25–31.
 
Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS (2008). Random survival forests. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(3): 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS169
 
Kaneriya SH, Robbins-Welty GA, Smagula SF, Karp JF, Butters MA, Lenze EJ, et al. (2016). Predictors and moderators of remission with aripiprazole augmentation in treatment-resistant late-life depression: An analysis of the IRL-GRey randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(4): 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3447
 
Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53(282): 457–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452
 
King G, Nielsen R, Coberley C, Pope JE, Wells A (2011). Comparative effectiveness of matching methods for causal inference. Cambridge, MA. Unpublished manuscript.
 
Kraemer HC (2013). Discovering, comparing, and combining moderators of treatment on outcome after randomized clinical trials: A parametric approach. Statistics in Medicine, 32(11): 1964–1973. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5734
 
Kraemer HC, Wilson GT, Fairburn CG, Agras WS (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10): 877–883. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.877
 
Levine MD, Cheng Y, Marcus MD, Kalarchian MA, Emery RL (2016). Preventing postpartum smoking relapse: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(4): 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0248
 
Levine MD, Marcus MD, Kalarchian MA, Cheng Y (2013). Strategies to avoid returning to smoking (STARTS): A randomized controlled trial of postpartum smoking relapse prevention interventions. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 36(2): 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.10.002
 
Liang M, Yu M (2022). A semiparametric approach to model effect modification. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(538): 752–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1811099
 
Liaw A, Wiener M, et al. (2002). Classification and regression by randomforest. R News, 2(3): 18–22.
 
Mo W, Liu Y (2022). Efficient learning of optimal individualized treatment rules for heteroscedastic or misspecified treatment-free effect models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Statistical Methodology, 84(2): 440–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12474
 
Niles AN, Wolitzky-Taylor KB, Arch JJ, Craske MG (2017). Applying a novel statistical method to advance the personalized treatment of anxiety disorders: A composite moderator of comparative drop-out from cbt and act. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 91: 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.01.001
 
Park H, Petkova E, Tarpey T, Ogden RT (2022). A sparse additive model for treatment effect-modifier selection. Biostatistics, 23(2): 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxaa032
 
Rubin DB (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5): 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350
 
Rubin DB (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469): 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001880
 
Smagula SF, Wallace ML, Anderson SJ, Karp JF, Lenze EJ, Mulsant BH, et al. (2016). Combining moderators to identify clinical profiles of patients who will, and will not, benefit from aripiprazole augmentation for treatment resistant late-life major depressive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 81: 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.07.005
 
Song R, Luo S, Zeng D, Zhang HH, Lu W, Li Z (2017). Semiparametric single-index model for estimating optimal individualized treatment strategy. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 11(1): 364–384.
 
Stuart EA (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
 
Tian L, Alizadeh AA, Gentles AJ, Tibshirani R (2014). A simple method for estimating interactions between a treatment and a large number of covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109(508): 1517–1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2014.951443
 
Tibshirani R (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Methodological, 58(1): 267–288.
 
Wallace ML, Banihashemi L, O’Donnell C, Nimgaonkar VL, Kodavali C, McNamee R, et al. (2018). Using optimal combined moderators to define heterogeneity in neural responses to randomized conditions: Application to the effect of sleep loss on fear learning. NeuroImage, 181: 718–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.051
 
Wallace ML, Frank E, Kraemer HC (2013). A novel approach for developing and interpreting treatment moderator profiles in randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(11): 1241–1247. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1960
 
Wallace ML, Smagula SF (2018). Promise and challenges of using combined moderator methods to personalize mental health treatment. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(6): 678–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2018.02.001
 
Yadlowsky S, Pellegrini F, Lionetto F, Braune S, Tian L (2021). Estimation and validation of ratio-based conditional average treatment effects using observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116(533): 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2020.1772080
 
Zhao YQ, Zeng D, Laber EB, Song R, Yuan M, Kosorok MR (2015). Doubly robust learning for estimating individualized treatment with censored data. Biometrika, 102(1): 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asu050

PDF XML
PDF XML

Copyright
2024 The Author(s). Published by the School of Statistics and the Center for Applied Statistics, Renmin University of China.
by logo by logo
Open access article under the CC BY license.

Keywords
counterfactual outcomes matched pair personalized medicine smoking cessation

Funding
This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation Division of Mathematical Sciences (1916001 to Y.C.) and by the University of Pittsburgh Center for Research Computing, RRID:SCR-022735, through the resources provided. Specifically, this work used the H2P cluster, which is supported by NSF award number OAC-2117681.

Metrics
since February 2021
392

Article info
views

324

PDF
downloads

Export citation

Copy and paste formatted citation
Placeholder

Download citation in file


Share


RSS

Journal of data science

  • Online ISSN: 1683-8602
  • Print ISSN: 1680-743X

About

  • About journal

For contributors

  • Submit
  • OA Policy
  • Become a Peer-reviewer

Contact us

  • JDS@ruc.edu.cn
  • No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District Beijing, 100872, P.R. China
Powered by PubliMill  •  Privacy policy