Trustworthy personalized treatment selection: causal effect-trees and calibration in perioperative medicine
Mittelberg, Y.; Stiglitz, D. K.; Kowadlo, G.
Show abstract
BackgroundPersonalized medicine promises to tailor treatments to the individual, but it carries a hidden risk: mistaking statistical noise for actionable clinical insight. Current machine learning approaches often provide predictions, but fail to inform clinicians when those predictions are unreliable. ObjectiveDevelop a deployment-readiness framework that integrates causal inference, interpretable effect-trees, and calibration assessment to distinguish actionable signal from unreliable variation, and to support treatment selection only when the estimated benefit is both reliable and clinically meaningful. MethodsUsing retrospective observational cohort EHR data from the INSPIRE perioperative dataset (N>130,000 surgical operations, 2011-2020), we estimated treatment effects using causal forests with double machine learning, benchmarked against other causal methods to assess convergence. We used the estimated causal effects to create effect-trees and translated estimates into interpretable rules. We validated the treatment recommendations by assessing subgroup calibration to identify which groups were reliable for treatment selection. ResultsIn a prostate procedures case study (neuraxial versus general anesthesia; total N=2,822), neuraxial anesthesia was associated with substantially lower post-operative opioid use (ATE = -1.38 opioid medications, 95% CI [-1.62, -1.15]). The effect-tree produced five clinically interpretable subgroups using BMI, ASA status, and age, with effects ranging from -1.10 to -1.59 opioid medications. Calibration analysis identified four of five subgroups as reliable for deployment (calibration error < 0.08), while one small subgroup (N=250) showed higher calibration error (0.44), illustrating how the framework rates unreliable heterogeneity. ConclusionsIndividual prediction heterogeneity does not automatically justify clinical personalization. By combining effect-trees with calibration, this framework distinguishes actionable heterogeneity from noisy heterogeneity (detectable but unreliable). This approach transforms causal machine learning from a black box into a validated decision support system that enables selective deployment of treatment decision rules.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Utility of Automatable Prediction Models for Improving Palliative and End-Of-Life Care Outcomes: Towards Routine Decision Analysis Before Implementation 94%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 93%
- Validation of a Derived International Patient Severity Algorithm to Support COVID-19 Analytics from Electronic Health Record Data 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 93%
- Implicit bias in Critical Care Data: Factors affecting sampling frequencies and missingness patterns of clinical and biological variables in ICU Patients 92%
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 92%
- Investigating Ethical Tradeoffs in Crisis Standards of Care through Simulation of Ventilator Allocation Protocols 92%
- US Primary Care in 2029: A Delphi Survey on the Impact of Machine Learning 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 93%
- Comparison of Bayesian networks, G-estimation and linear models to estimate causal treatment effects in aggregated N-of-1 trials 92%
- Predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects: a systematic review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.