Cited by 41Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Screening Experiments for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes

Open access
Murphy, S. A., Bingham, D.·2009·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Dynamic treatment regimes are time-varying treatments that individualize sequences of treatments to the patient. The construction of dynamic treatment regimes is challenging because a patient will be eligible for some treatment components only if he has not responded (or has responded) to other treatment components. In addition there are usually a number of potentially useful treatment components and combinations thereof. In this article, we propose new methodology for identifying promising components and screening out negligible ones. First, we define causal factorial effects for treatment components that may be applied sequentially to a patient. Second we propose experimental designs that can be used to study the treatment components. Surprisingly, modifications can be made to (fractional) factorial designs - more commonly found in the engineering statistics literature -for screening in this setting. Furthermore we provide an analysis model that can be used to screen the factorial effects. We demonstrate the proposed methodology using examples motivated in the literature and also via a simulation study.

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 · 10.1198/jasa.2009.0119

Cites

39 of 39 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, S. A., & Bingham, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
2009-03
Volume
104
Issue
485
Pages
391-408
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2078249808
Cited by
41
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080015)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P50DA010075)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
dynamic treatment regimes, sequential therapy, fractional factorial design, personalized treatment, treatment eligibility, causal inference

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