The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From Real‐World Patient Data to Individualized Treatment Effects Using Machine Learning: Current and Future Methods to Address Underlying Challenges
Open accessAbstract
Clinical decision making needs to be supported by evidence that treatments are beneficial to individual patients. Although randomized control trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for testing and introducing new drugs, due to the focus on specific questions with respect to establishing efficacy and safety vs. standard treatment, they do not provide a full characterization of the heterogeneity in the final intended treatment population. Conversely, real‐world observational data, such as electronic health records (EHRs), contain large amounts of clinical information about heterogeneous patients and their response to treatments. In this paper, we introduce the main opportunities and challenges in using observational data for training machine learning methods to estimate individualized treatment effects and make treatment recommendations. We describe the modeling choices of the state‐of‐the‐art machine learning methods for causal inference, developed for estimating treatment effects both in the cross‐section and longitudinal settings. Additionally, we highlight future research directions that could lead to achieving the full potential of leveraging EHRs and machine learning for making individualized treatment recommendations. We also discuss how experimental data from RCTs and Pharmacometric and Quantitative Systems Pharmacology approaches can be used to not only improve machine learning methods, but also provide ways for validating them. These future research directions will require us to collaborate across the scientific disciplines to incorporate models based on RCTs and known disease processes, physiology, and pharmacology into these machine learning models based on EHRs to fully optimize the opportunity these data present.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Estimating the Support of a High-Dimensional Distribution
Schölkopf, B., Platt, J. C., Shawe-Taylor, J., Smola, A. J., & Williamson, R. C. (2001) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/089976601750264965 · Cited by 6,168
Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology
Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. Á., & Brumback, B. (2000) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 · Cited by 5,581
Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests
Wager, S., & Athey, S. (2018) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839 · Cited by 2,917
External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Rothwell, P. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8 · Cited by 2,544
Robins, J. (1986) · Mathematical Modelling · doi:10.1016/0270-0255(86)90088-6 · Cited by 2,451
Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects
Athey, S., & Imbens, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1510489113 · Cited by 1,586
A clinically applicable approach to continuous prediction of future acute kidney injury
Tomašev, N., Glorot, X., Rae, J. W., Zielinski, M., Askham, H., Saraiva, A., Mottram, A., Meyer, C., Ravuri, S., Protsyuk, I., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1390-1 · Cited by 1,086
Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized, Controlled Trials
Frieden, T. R. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1614394 · Cited by 770
Assessing the Gold Standard — Lessons from the History of RCTs
Bothwell, L. E., Greene, J. A., Podolsky, S. H., & Jones, D. S. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmms1604593 · Cited by 664
Brat, G. A., Agniel, D., Beam, A., Yorkgitis, B., Bicket, M., Homer, M., Fox, K. P., Knecht, D. B., McMahill-Walraven, C. N., Palmer, N., et al. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j5790 · Cited by 591
Prognostication and risk factors for cystic fibrosis via automated machine learning
Alaa, A. M., & van der Schaar, M. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-29523-2 · Cited by 80
Self-citation
Cited by
The Role of AI in Hospitals and Clinics: Transforming Healthcare in the 21st Century
Maleki Varnosfaderani, S., & Forouzanfar, M. (2024) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering11040337 · Cited by 931
Sokol, K., Fackler, J., & Vogt, J. E. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01725-9 · Cited by 105
Terranova, N., Renard, D., Shahin, M. H., Menon, S., Cao, Y., Hop, C. E. C. A., Hayes, S., Madrasi, K., Stodtmann, S., Tensfeldt, T., et al. (2024) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.3053 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Bica, I., Alaa, A. M., Lambert, C., & van der Schaar, M.
- Venue
- Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-28
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-100
- ISSN
- 0009-9236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6535
- OpenAlex
- W3027747864
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 9.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.