Cited by 118Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceMachine Learning in Healthcare

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with right-censored data via causal survival forests

Open access
Cui, Yifan, Kosorok, Michael R, Sverdrup, Erik, Wager, Stefan, Zhu, Ruoqing·2023·Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology

Abstract

Forest-based methods have recently gained in popularity for non-parametric treatment effect estimation. Building on this line of work, we introduce causal survival forests, which can be used to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects in survival and observational setting where outcomes may be right-censored. Our approach relies on orthogonal estimating equations to robustly adjust for both censoring and selection effects under unconfoundedness. In our experiments, we find our approach to perform well relative to a number of baselines.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jrsssb/qkac001

Cites

77 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Biau G. (2012). Analysis of a random forests model. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1), 1063-1095. doi:10.5555/2188385.2343682 · DOI
  2. Fleming T. R., & Harrington D. P. (2011). Counting processes and survival analysis(Vol. 169).
  3. Foster D. J., & Syrgkanis V. (2019). 'Orthogonal statistical learning', arXiv, arXiv:1901.09036, preprint: not peer reviewed. · arXiv
  4. Imbens G. W., & Rubin D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Oprescu M., Syrgkanis V., & Wu Z. S. (2019). Orthogonal random forest for causal inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 4932-4941).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cui, Y., Kosorok, M. R., Sverdrup, E., Wager, S., & Zhu, R.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Cui, Yifan
Venue
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology
Published
2023-02-27
Volume
85
Issue
2
Pages
179-211
ISSN
  • 1369-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9868
OpenAlex
W4322397527
Cited by
117
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
21.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
treatment effect heterogeneity, right-censored data, survival analysis, selection effects, unconfoundedness

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