IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v13y2017i1p20n10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Four Methods for Estimating Tree-Based Treatment Regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Sies Aniek

    (Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, box 3713, 3000Leuven, Belgium)

  • Van Mechelen Iven

    (Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, box 3713, 3000Leuven, Belgium)

Abstract

When multiple treatment alternatives are available for a certain psychological or medical problem, an important challenge is to find an optimal treatment regime, which specifies for each patient the most effective treatment alternative given his or her pattern of pretreatment characteristics. The focus of this paper is on tree-based treatment regimes, which link an optimal treatment alternative to each leaf of a tree; as such they provide an insightful representation of the decision structure underlying the regime. This paper compares the absolute and relative performance of four methods for estimating regimes of that sort (viz., Interaction Trees, Model-based Recursive Partitioning, an approach developed by Zhang et al. and Qualitative Interaction Trees) in an extensive simulation study. The evaluation criteria were, on the one hand, the expected outcome if the entire population would be subjected to the treatment regime resulting from each method under study and the proportion of clients assigned to the truly best treatment alternative, and, on the other hand, the Type I and Type II error probabilities of each method. The method of Zhang et al. was superior regarding the first two outcome measures and the Type II error probabilities, but performed worst in some conditions of the simulation study regarding Type I error probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sies Aniek & Van Mechelen Iven, 2017. "Comparing Four Methods for Estimating Tree-Based Treatment Regimes," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:20:n:10
    DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2016-0068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2016-0068
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ijb-2016-0068?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman, 2001. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(4), pages 673-748, August.
    2. Dehejia, Rajeev H., 2005. "Program evaluation as a decision problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 141-173.
    3. Erica E. M. Moodie & Thomas S. Richardson & David A. Stephens, 2007. "Demystifying Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 447-455, June.
    4. Achim Zeileis & Kurt Hornik, 2007. "Generalized M‐fluctuation tests for parameter instability," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 61(4), pages 488-508, November.
    5. S. A. Murphy, 2003. "Optimal dynamic treatment regimes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(2), pages 331-355, May.
    6. Juliet Shaffer, 1991. "Probability of directional errors with disordinal (qualitative) interaction," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 29-38, March.
    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. Q. Clairon & R. Henderson & N. J. Young & E. D. Wilson & C. J. Taylor, 2021. "Adaptive treatment and robust control," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 223-236, March.
    2. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2016. "Targeting Policies: Multiple Testing and Distributional Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 22950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Luo, Yu & Graham, Daniel J. & McCoy, Emma J., 2023. "Semiparametric Bayesian doubly robust causal estimation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Anders Bredahl Kock & Martin Thyrsgaard, 2017. "Optimal sequential treatment allocation," Papers 1705.09952, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2018.
    5. Rich Benjamin & Moodie Erica E. M. & A. Stephens David, 2016. "Influence Re-weighted G-Estimation," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 157-177, May.
    6. Lingyun Lyu & Yu Cheng & Abdus S. Wahed, 2023. "Imputation‐based Q‐learning for optimizing dynamic treatment regimes with right‐censored survival outcome," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 3676-3689, December.
    7. Peng Wu & Donglin Zeng & Haoda Fu & Yuanjia Wang, 2020. "On using electronic health records to improve optimal treatment rules in randomized trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1075-1086, December.
    8. Shosei Sakaguchi, 2021. "Estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Assignment Rules under Policy Constraints," Papers 2106.05031, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    9. Xiaofei Bai & Anastasios A. Tsiatis & Wenbin Lu & Rui Song, 2017. "Optimal treatment regimes for survival endpoints using a locally-efficient doubly-robust estimator from a classification perspective," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 585-604, October.
    10. Stefanie Behncke & Markus Frölich & Michael Lechner, 2009. "Targeting Labour Market Programmes - Results from a Randomized Experiment," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 145(III), pages 221-268, September.
    11. Qizhao Chen & Morgane Austern & Vasilis Syrgkanis, 2023. "Inference on Optimal Dynamic Policies via Softmax Approximation," Papers 2303.04416, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    12. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2022. "Multiple Testing and the Distributional Effects of Accountability Incentives in Education," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 1552-1568, October.
    13. Wei Liu & Zhiwei Zhang & Lei Nie & Guoxing Soon, 2017. "A Case Study in Personalized Medicine: Rilpivirine Versus Efavirenz for Treatment-Naive HIV Patients," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(520), pages 1381-1392, October.
    14. Hongming Pu & Bo Zhang, 2021. "Estimating optimal treatment rules with an instrumental variable: A partial identification learning approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(2), pages 318-345, April.
    15. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2020. "Fair Policy Targeting," Papers 2005.12395, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    16. Davide Viviano & Jess Rudder, 2020. "Policy design in experiments with unknown interference," Papers 2011.08174, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    17. Carlos Fernández-Loría & Foster Provost & Jesse Anderton & Benjamin Carterette & Praveen Chandar, 2023. "A Comparison of Methods for Treatment Assignment with an Application to Playlist Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 786-803, June.
    18. Davide Viviano, 2019. "Policy Targeting under Network Interference," Papers 1906.10258, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    19. Keisuke Hirano & Jack R. Porter, 2012. "Impossibility Results for Nondifferentiable Functionals," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1769-1790, July.
    20. L. Doove & E. Dusseldorp & K. Deun & I. Mechelen, 2014. "A comparison of five recursive partitioning methods to find person subgroups involved in meaningful treatment–subgroup interactions," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 8(4), pages 403-425, December.

    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:bpj:ijbist:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:20:n:10. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.