IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/advdac/v8y2014i4p403-425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of five recursive partitioning methods to find person subgroups involved in meaningful treatment–subgroup interactions

Author

Listed:
  • L. Doove
  • E. Dusseldorp
  • K. Deun
  • I. Mechelen

Abstract

In case multiple treatment alternatives are available for some medical problem, the detection of treatment–subgroup interactions (i.e., relative treatment effectiveness varying over subgroups of persons) is of key importance for personalized medicine and the development of optimal treatment assignment strategies. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) often go without clear a priori hypotheses on the subgroups involved in treatment–subgroup interactions, and with a large number of pre-treatment characteristics in the data. In such situations, relevant subgroups (defined in terms of pre-treatment characteristics) are to be induced during the actual data analysis. This comes down to a problem of cluster analysis, with the goal of this analysis being to find clusters of persons that are involved in meaningful treatment–person cluster interactions. For such a cluster analysis, five recently proposed methods can be used, all being of a recursive partitioning type. However, these five methods have been developed almost independently, and the relations between them are not yet understood. The present paper closes this gap. It starts by outlining the basic principles behind each method, and by illustrating it with an application on an RCT data set on two treatment strategies for substance abuse problems. Next, it presents a comparison of the methods, hereby focusing on major similarities and differences. The discussion concludes with practical advice for end users with regard to the selection of a suitable method, and with an important challenge for future research in this area. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:advdac:v:8:y:2014:i:4:p:403-425
    DOI: 10.1007/s11634-013-0159-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11634-013-0159-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11634-013-0159-x?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. Juliet Shaffer, 1991. "Probability of directional errors with disordinal (qualitative) interaction," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 29-38, March.
    2. Su Xiaogang & Zhou Tianni & Yan Xin & Fan Juanjuan & Yang Song, 2008. "Interaction Trees with Censored Survival Data," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Dehejia, Rajeev H., 2005. "Program evaluation as a decision problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 141-173.
    4. Elise Dusseldorp & Jacqueline Meulman, 2004. "The regression trunk approach to discover treatment covariate interaction," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 355-374, September.
    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. Marjolein Fokkema & Niels Smits & Achim Zeileis & Torsten Hothorn & Henk Kelderman, 2015. "Detecting Treatment-Subgroup Interactions in Clustered Data with Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Model Trees," Working Papers 2015-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    2. Heidi Seibold & Torsten Hothorn & Achim Zeileis, 2019. "Generalised linear model trees with global additive effects," 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. 13(3), pages 703-725, September.
    3. Veronica Distefano & Maria Mannone & Irene Poli, 2023. "Exploring Heterogeneity with Category and Cluster Analyses for Mixed Data," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Moritz Berger & Thomas Welchowski & Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg & Matthias Schmid, 2019. "A classification tree approach for the modeling of competing risks in discrete time," 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. 13(4), pages 965-990, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Gerhard Tutz & Moritz Berger, 2018. "Tree-structured modelling of categorical predictors in generalized additive regression," 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. 12(3), pages 737-758, September.
    3. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kobus, Martyna & Parker, Thomas & Rosa-Dias, Pedro, 2020. "Loss Aversion and the Welfare Ranking of Policy Interventions," IZA Discussion Papers 13176, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Bhattacharya, Debopam & Dupas, Pascaline, 2012. "Inferring welfare maximizing treatment assignment under budget constraints," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 167(1), pages 168-196.
    5. Ruoqing Zhu & Ying-Qi Zhao & Guanhua Chen & Shuangge Ma & Hongyu Zhao, 2017. "Greedy outcome weighted tree learning of optimal personalized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 391-400, June.
    6. Andrew Gelman, 2009. "A statistician’s perspective on “Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion”, by Joshua D. Angrist and Jorn-Steffen Pischke," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(2), pages 315-320, June.
    7. Stefano Caria & Grant Gordon & Maximilian Kasy & Simon Quinn & Soha Shami & Alexander Teytelboym, 2020. "An Adaptive Targeted Field Experiment: Job Search Assistance for Refugees in Jordan," CESifo Working Paper Series 8535, CESifo.
    8. Patrick Arni & Gerard J. van den Berg & Rafael Lalive, 2022. "Treatment Versus Regime Effects of Carrots and Sticks," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 111-127, January.
    9. Ashok K. Mishra & Anjani Kumar & Pramod K. Joshi & Alwin D'Souza, 2018. "Cooperatives, contract farming, and farm size: The case of tomato producers in Nepal," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 865-886, October.
    10. Toru Kitagawa & Hugo Lopez & Jeff Rowley, 2022. "Stochastic Treatment Choice with Empirical Welfare Updating," Papers 2211.01537, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    11. Romain Aeberhardt & Élise Coudin & Roland Rathelot, 2017. "The heterogeneity of ethnic employment gaps," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 307-337, January.
    12. Roger Bandick & Holger Görg & Patrik Karpaty, 2016. "Foreign Acquisitions, Domestic Multinationals, and R&D," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND HOST COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT Volume 53: World Scientific Studies in International Economics, chapter 4, pages 53-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Kock, Anders Bredahl & Preinerstorfer, David & Veliyev, Bezirgen, 2023. "Treatment recommendation with distributional targets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 624-646.
    14. Gudibande, Rohan Ravindra & Jacob, Arun, 2020. "Minimum wages for domestic workers: impact evaluation of the Indian experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    16. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    17. Shosei Sakaguchi, 2021. "Estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Assignment Rules under Policy Constraints," Papers 2106.05031, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    18. Roger Bandick, 2016. "Offshoring, Plant Survival and Employment Growth," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 597-620, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Bas van der Klaauw & Sandra Vriend, 2015. "A Nonparametric Method for Predicting Survival Probabilities," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-126/V, Tinbergen Institute.

    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:spr:advdac:v:8:y:2014:i:4:p:403-425. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.