Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.14309

A Bayesian framework for cost-effectiveness analysis with time-varying treatment decisions

Esteban Fernández-Morales·Emily M. Ko·Nandita Mitra·Youjin Lee·Arman Oganisian
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) compare the costs and health outcomes of treatment regimes to inform medical decisions. With observational claims data, CEAs must address nonrandom treatment assignment, administrative censoring, and irregularly spaced medical visits that reflect the continuous timing of care and treatment initiation. In high-risk, early-stage endometrial cancer (HR-EC), adjuvant radiation is initiated at patient-specific times following hysterectomy, causing confounding between treatment and outcomes that can evolve with post-surgical recovery and clinical course. Most existing CEA methods use point-treatment or discrete-time models. However, point-treatment approaches break down with time-varying confounding, while discrete-time models bin continuous time, expand the data into a person-period format, and can induce zero-inflation by creating many intervals with no cost-accruing events. We propose a Bayesian framework for CEAs with sequential decision-making that jointly models costs and event times in continuous time, accounts for administrative censoring, and supports dynamic treatment regimes with minimal parametric assumptions. We use Bayesian g-computation to estimate causally interpretable cost-effectiveness measures, including net monetary benefit, and to compare regimes through posterior contrasts. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed method in simulations across censoring levels and compare it against discrete-time and fully parametric alternatives. We then use SEER-Medicare data to assess the cost-effectiveness of initiating adjuvant radiation therapy within six months following hysterectomy among HR-EC patients.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Esteban Fernández-Morales, Emily M. Ko, Nandita Mitra, Youjin Lee, Arman Oganisian. 2026-01-19. A Bayesian framework for cost-effectiveness analysis with time-varying treatment decisions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14309

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↗