SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Rachael Phillips

Publications and source records attributed to Rachael Phillips.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A Causal Inference Approach for Evaluating Diagnostic Tests and AI-Enabled Medical Devices: From Effect Modification to Information-Augmented Decision-Making

Diagnostic medical tests and devices provide useful information for evaluating the potential benefits and risks of therapeutic treatments. However, unlike treatments, their impact on health outcomes is generally indirect because measuring diagnostic information typically does not itself affect patient outcomes, which complicates evaluation of their effectiveness. In this work, we develop a causal inference approach for evaluating diagnostic tests by distinguishing explanatory and pragmatic effectiveness. Explanatory effectiveness evaluates whether a diagnostic test result provides treatment-relevant information beyond baseline covariates by explaining additional treatment-effect heterogeneity, which we characterize using a variance-based treatment-effect variable importance measure. Pragmatic effectiveness evaluates whether incorporating this information into personalized treatment decisions improves expected outcomes, a question central to decision-making for patients, clinicians, and other health care stakeholders. We formalize pragmatic effectiveness as a contrast between expected outcomes under optimal personalized treatment rules defined with and without access to the diagnostic test result. We establish identification of the proposed estimand and provide Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) and cross-validated TMLE procedures for nonparametric estimation and inference. Simulation studies and a synthetic colorectal cancer application illustrate the proposed estimands and estimation performance. More broadly, this approach provides a causal inference perspective for evaluating AI-enabled devices by distinguishing their dual roles as information-enrichment and personalized decision-optimization tools, clarifying whether AI improves outcomes by expanding information for downstream decisions, improving the decision rule used to act on that information, or through both pathways.

stat.ME

Improving the Efficiency of Subgroup Analysis in Randomized Controlled Trials with TMLE

Subgroup analyses within randomized controlled trials are often underpowered due to limited sample sizes. We address this challenge by leveraging trial participants outside the subgroup of interest to augment estimation within the subgroup. Specifically, we study two Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimators (TMLEs) that borrow information from non-subgroup participants within the same trial: a TMLE with pooled regression (TMLE-PR) and an Adaptive Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimator (A-TMLE). Both estimators enable information sharing without relying on any external real-world data, thereby capitalizing on key strengths of the trial: most importantly, the protection against bias afforded by the randomized treatment, but also harmonized data collection, and consistent treatment and outcome definitions. The general strategy proposed here directly advances the priorities of key regulatory agencies, including the FDA, by improving the precision of subgroup-specific treatment effect estimates without introducing external sources of bias, thereby facilitating rigorous inference to support equitable labeling, access, and post-market evaluation. In a case study based on analysis of data from a cardiovascular outcome trial (LEADER, NCT01179048), we estimate the risk reduction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) under liraglutide treatment among Black and Asian subgroups -- each comprising less than 10\% of the trial population -- using the proposed estimators that borrow information from the remainder of the trial. Using A-TMLE, in particular, we find estimated absolute MACE risk reductions of 1.6, 1.5, and 1.5 percentage points among Asian participants and 2.1, 2.0, and 2.1 percentage points among Black participants at 365, 540, and 730 days, respectively, with 95\% confidence intervals excluding the null at each time point.

stat.ME