Cited by 66Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Practical Guide to Honest Causal Forests for Identifying Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Jawadekar, Neal, Kezios, Katrina, Odden, Michelle C, Stingone, Jeanette A, Calonico, Sebastian, Rudolph, Kara, Zeki Al Hazzouri, Adina·2023·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

"Heterogeneous treatment effects" is a term which refers to conditional average treatment effects (i.e., CATEs) that vary across population subgroups. Epidemiologists are often interested in estimating such effects because they can help detect populations that may particularly benefit from or be harmed by a treatment. However, standard regression approaches for estimating heterogeneous effects are limited by preexisting hypotheses, test a single effect modifier at a time, and are subject to the multiple-comparisons problem. In this article, we aim to offer a practical guide to honest causal forests, an ensemble tree-based learning method which can discover as well as estimate heterogeneous treatment effects using a data-driven approach. We discuss the fundamentals of tree-based methods, describe how honest causal forests can identify and estimate heterogeneous effects, and demonstrate an implementation of this method using simulated data. Our implementation highlights the steps required to simulate data sets, build honest causal forests, and assess model performance across a variety of simulation scenarios. Overall, this paper is intended for epidemiologists and other population health researchers who lack an extensive background in machine learning yet are interested in utilizing an emerging method for identifying and estimating heterogeneous treatment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwad043

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jawadekar, N., Kezios, K., Odden, M. C., Stingone, J. A., Calonico, S., Rudolph, K., & Zeki Al Hazzouri, A.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Jawadekar, Neal
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2023-02-24
Volume
192
Issue
7
Pages
1155-1165
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W4322496502
Cited by
66
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5
FWCI
13.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
treatment effect heterogeneity, conditional average treatment effect, tree-based models, ensemble learning, effect modifiers, multiple comparisons, causal inference
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Computer Simulation, Humans, Causality, Forests

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