Trajectory-Based Individualized Treatment Rules

Lanqiu Yao; Thaddeus Tarpey

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2405.09810

Trajectory-Based Individualized Treatment Rules

Lanqiu Yao·Thaddeus Tarpey

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A core component of precision medicine research involves optimizing individualized treatment rules (ITRs) based on patient characteristics. Many studies used to estimate ITRs are longitudinal in nature, collecting outcomes over time. Yet, to date, methods developed to estimate ITRs often ignore the longitudinal structure of the data. Information available from the longitudinal nature of the data can be especially useful in mental health studies. Although treatment means might appear similar, understanding the trajectory of outcomes over time can reveal important differences between treatments and placebo effects. This longitudinal perspective is especially beneficial in mental health research, where subtle shifts in outcome patterns can hold significant implications. Despite numerous studies involving the collection of outcome data across various time points, most precision medicine methods used to develop ITRs overlook the information available from the longitudinal structure. The prevalence of missing data in such studies exacerbates the issue, as neglecting the longitudinal nature of the data can significantly impair the effectiveness of treatment rules. This paper develops a powerful longitudinal trajectory-based ITR construction method that incorporates baseline variables, via a single-index or biosignature, into the modeling of longitudinal outcomes. This trajectory-based ITR approach substantially minimizes the negative impact of missing data compared to more traditional ITR approaches. The approach is illustrated through simulation studies and a clinical trial for depression, contrasting it with more traditional ITRs that ignore longitudinal information.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Lanqiu Yao, Thaddeus Tarpey. 2024-05-16. Trajectory-Based Individualized Treatment Rules. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09810

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗