IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/lifeda/v28y2022i3d10.1007_s10985-022-09554-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privacy-preserving estimation of an optimal individualized treatment rule: a case study in maximizing time to severe depression-related outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Erica E. M. Moodie

    (McGill University)

  • Janie Coulombe

    (McGill University)

  • Coraline Danieli

    (McGill University)

  • Christel Renoux

    (McGill University
    Jewish General Hospital
    McGill University)

  • Susan M. Shortreed

    (Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute
    University of Washington)

Abstract

Estimating individualized treatment rules—particularly in the context of right-censored outcomes—is challenging because the treatment effect heterogeneity of interest is often small, thus difficult to detect. While this motivates the use of very large datasets such as those from multiple health systems or centres, data privacy may be of concern with participating data centres reluctant to share individual-level data. In this case study on the treatment of depression, we demonstrate an application of distributed regression for privacy protection used in combination with dynamic weighted survival modelling (DWSurv) to estimate an optimal individualized treatment rule whilst obscuring individual-level data. In simulations, we demonstrate the flexibility of this approach to address local treatment practices that may affect confounding, and show that DWSurv retains its double robustness even when performed through a (weighted) distributed regression approach. The work is motivated by, and illustrated with, an analysis of treatment for unipolar depression using the United Kingdom’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Suggested Citation

  • Erica E. M. Moodie & Janie Coulombe & Coraline Danieli & Christel Renoux & Susan M. Shortreed, 2022. "Privacy-preserving estimation of an optimal individualized treatment rule: a case study in maximizing time to severe depression-related outcomes," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 512-542, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lifeda:v:28:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10985-022-09554-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10985-022-09554-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10985-022-09554-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10985-022-09554-8?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. Chakraborty, B., 2011. "Dynamic treatment regimes for managing chronic health conditions: A statistical perspective," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(1), pages 40-45.
    2. Michael P. Wallace & Erica E. M. Moodie, 2015. "Doubly‐robust dynamic treatment regimen estimation via weighted least squares," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 636-644, September.
    3. Fan Li & Kari Lock Morgan & Alan M. Zaslavsky, 2018. "Balancing Covariates via Propensity Score Weighting," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(521), pages 390-400, January.
    4. Juliana Schulz & Erica E. M. Moodie, 2021. "Doubly Robust Estimation of Optimal Dosing Strategies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 116(533), pages 256-268, March.
    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.
    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. 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.
    2. Weibin Mo & Yufeng Liu, 2022. "Efficient learning of optimal individualized treatment rules for heteroscedastic or misspecified treatment‐free effect models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 440-472, April.
    3. Shosei Sakaguchi, 2024. "Policy Learning for Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes with Observational Data," Papers 2404.00221, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    4. Baqun Zhang & Min Zhang, 2018. "C‐learning: A new classification framework to estimate optimal dynamic treatment regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 891-899, September.
    5. Peng Ding, 2022. "Peng Ding’s contribution to the Discussion of ‘Assumption‐lean inference for generalised linear model parameters’ by Vansteelandt and Dukes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(3), pages 691-693, July.
    6. Wallace, Michael P. & Moodie, Erica E. M. & Stephens, David A., 2017. "Dynamic Treatment Regimen Estimation via Regression-Based Techniques: Introducing R Package DTRreg," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 80(i02).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Jiacheng Wu & Nina Galanter & Susan M. Shortreed & Erica E.M. Moodie, 2022. "Ranking tailoring variables for constructing individualized treatment rules: An application to schizophrenia," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(2), pages 309-330, March.
    10. Shi, Chengchun & Luo, Shikai & Le, Yuan & Zhu, Hongtu & Song, Rui, 2022. "Statistically efficient advantage learning for offline reinforcement learning in infinite horizons," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115598, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Guanhua Chen & Donglin Zeng & Michael R. Kosorok, 2016. "Personalized Dose Finding Using Outcome Weighted Learning," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(516), pages 1509-1521, October.
    12. Qingyuan Zhao & Dylan S. Small & Ashkan Ertefaie, 2022. "Selective inference for effect modification via the lasso," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 382-413, April.
    13. Shuo Sun & Erica E. M. Moodie & Johanna G. Nešlehová, 2021. "Causal inference for quantile treatment effects," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), June.
    14. Jin Wang & Donglin Zeng & D. Y. Lin, 2022. "Semiparametric single-index models for optimal treatment regimens with censored outcomes," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 744-763, October.
    15. Ji Liu, 2024. "Education legislations that equalize: a study of compulsory schooling law reforms in post-WWII United States," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    17. Durlauf, Steven N. & Navarro, Salvador & Rivers, David A., 2016. "Model uncertainty and the effect of shall-issue right-to-carry laws on crime," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 32-67.
    18. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Toward an Ethical Experiment," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    19. Xin Qiu & Donglin Zeng & Yuanjia Wang, 2018. "Estimation and evaluation of linear individualized treatment rules to guarantee performance," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 517-528, June.
    20. Yiwang Zhou & Peter X.K. Song & Haoda Fu, 2021. "Net benefit index: Assessing the influence of a biomarker for individualized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1254-1264, 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:spr:lifeda:v:28:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10985-022-09554-8. 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.