arXiv subjects

Paweł Morzywołek

Publications and source records attributed to Paweł Morzywołek.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Partial Identification Learning with Categorical Treatments for Individualized Treatment Rules

We develop a partial identification learning framework for individualized treatment rules (ITRs) with categorical treatments, outcomes, and instrumental variables. Rather than relying on strong causal assumptions required for point identification, our framework leverages causal bounds to characterize the optimal treatment decision. Existing methods for ITR optimization under partial identification are largely restricted to binary treatment settings and the bounds derived by Balke and Pearl under the canonical instrumental variable design. We extend this framework to accommodate a broader class of causal structures as well as scenarios with categorical treatment, outcome, and instrumental variables. We introduce a generalized minimax loss criterion for treatment selection from among more than two options, which minimizes the maximum possible difference between the chosen and the optimal treatment based on partial identification bounds. To construct the ITR, we use a symmetric embedding strategy that maps discrete treatments to the vertices of a regular simplex, avoiding the geometric inconsistencies of standard one-vs-rest approaches. We derive a differentiable, weighted surrogate risk function and show that optimizing it solves the original problem. Furthermore, we provide finite sample convergence rates via an oracle inequality under general regularity conditions, which we show are satisfied by a kernel based implementation. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the framework yields ITRs significantly closer to the oracle ITR compared to existing alternatives in settings with unmeasured confounding.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Modified treatment policies that depend on the natural history of treatment

Longitudinal modified treatment policies (LMTP) are a class of interventions that allow the definition, identification, and estimation of causal effects in general settings, such as with continuous or multivariate exposures, treatment regimens that require grace periods. Targeted machine learning estimators (i.e., double/debiased) have been formulated for LMTPs that assign the exposure at time $t$ as a function of the natural value of treatment at time $t$. However, important applications such as estimating the effect of a delay in the start of a treatment require formulating LMTPs that depend not only on the natural value of treatment at time $t$ but also on the \textit{history} of the natural value of treatment prior to time $t$. This paper develops targeted learning estimators for this general case. We discuss the definition of the effects, and propose estimators that use an augmented-data version of the sequential regression form of the longitudinal g-computation formula. Our estimators are based on the efficient influence function and provide $\sqrt{n}$ inference under standard doubly robust rate assumptions on the convergence of the outcome and treatment regressions. We apply the new estimators to assess the effect of delaying a risky pain treatment by one month on 12-month incidence of opioid use disorder.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

The risks of risk assessment: causal blind spots when using prediction models for treatment decisions

Clinicians increasingly rely on prediction models to guide treatment choices. Most prediction models, however, are developed using observational data that include some patients who have already received the treatment the prediction model is meant to inform. Special attention to the causal role of those earlier treatments is required when interpreting the resulting predictions. We identify 'causal blind spots' in three common approaches to handling treatment when developing a prediction model: including treatment as a predictor, restricting to individuals taking a certain treatment, and ignoring treatment. Through several real examples, we illustrate how the risks obtained from models developed using such approaches may be misinterpreted and can lead to misinformed decision-making. Our discussion covers issues attributable to confounding, selection, mediation and changes in treatment protocols over time. We advocate for an extension of guidelines for the development, reporting and evaluation of prediction models to avoid such misinterpretations. Developers must ensure that the intended target population for the model, and the treatment conditions under which predictions hold, are clearly communicated. When prediction models are intended to inform treatment decisions, they need to provide estimates of risk under the specific treatment (or intervention) options being considered, known as 'prediction under interventions'. Next to suitable data, this requires causal reasoning and causal inference techniques during model development and evaluation. Being clear about what a given prediction model can and cannot be used for prevents misinformed treatment decisions and thereby prevents potential harm to patients.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Risk-based decision making: estimands for sequential prediction under interventions

Prediction models are used amongst others to inform medical decisions on interventions. Typically, individuals with high risks of adverse outcomes are advised to undergo an intervention while those at low risk are advised to refrain from it. Standard prediction models do not always provide risks that are relevant to inform such decisions: e.g., an individual may be estimated to be at low risk because similar individuals in the past received an intervention which lowered their risk. Therefore, prediction models supporting decisions should target risks belonging to defined intervention strategies. Previous works on prediction under interventions assumed that the prediction model was used only at one time point to make an intervention decision. In clinical practice, intervention decisions are rarely made only once: they might be repeated, deferred and re-evaluated. This requires estimated risks under interventions that can be reconsidered at several potential decision moments. In the current work, we highlight key considerations for formulating estimands in sequential prediction under interventions that can inform such intervention decisions. We illustrate these considerations by giving examples of estimands for a case study about choosing between vaginal delivery and cesarean section for women giving birth. Our formalization of prediction tasks in a sequential, causal, and estimand context provides guidance for future studies to ensure that the right question is answered and appropriate causal estimation approaches are chosen to develop sequential prediction models that can inform intervention decisions.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Orthogonal prediction of counterfactual outcomes

Orthogonal meta-learners, such as DR-learner, R-learner and IF-learner, are increasingly used to estimate conditional average treatment effects. They improve convergence rates relative to na\"ıve meta-learners (e.g., T-, S- and X-learner) through de-biasing procedures that involve applying standard learners to specifically transformed outcome data. This leads them to disregard the possibly constrained outcome space, which can be particularly problematic for dichotomous outcomes: these typically get transformed to values that are no longer constrained to the unit interval, making it difficult for standard learners to guarantee predictions within the unit interval. To address this, we construct orthogonal meta-learners for the prediction of counterfactual outcomes which respect the outcome space. As such, the obtained i-learner or imputation-learner is more generally expected to outperform existing learners, even when the outcome is unconstrained, as we confirm empirically in simulation studies and an analysis of critical care data. Our development also sheds broader light onto the construction of orthogonal learners for other estimands.

stat.ME↗