Inference for Clinical Decision Making Policies D. Lizotte, L. Gunter, S. Murphy INFORMS October 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
STAR*D: Results and Implications for Clinicians, Researchers, and Policy Makers Bradley N. Gaynes, M.D., M.P.H. Associate Professor of Psychiatry University.
Advertisements

Standardized Scales.
Research on Improvements to Current SIPP Imputation Methods ASA-SRM SIPP Working Group September 16, 2008 Martha Stinson.
Treatment Effect Heterogeneity & Dynamic Treatment Regime Development S.A. Murphy.
11 Confidence Intervals, Q-Learning and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Time for Causality – Bristol April, 2012 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read.
1 Meeting the Future in Managing Chronic Disorders: Individually Tailored Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan Oberlin College, Feb. 20, 2006.
Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) Stephen Wisniewski, PhD Epidemiology Data Center STAR*D Data Coordinating Center University.
Using Clinical Trial Data to Construct Policies for Guiding Clinical Decision Making S. Murphy & J. Pineau American Control Conference Special Session.
Experimenting to Improve Clinical Practice S.A. Murphy AAAS, 02/15/13 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.:
1 Dynamic Treatment Regimes Advances and Open Problems S.A. Murphy ICSPRAR-2008.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy LSU ---- Geaux Tigers! April 2009.
Substance Abuse, Multi-Stage Decisions, Generalization Error How are they connected?! S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan CMU, Nov., 2004.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan March, 2004.
Constructing Dynamic Treatment Regimes & STAR*D S.A. Murphy ICSA June 2008.
SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have CPDD June, 2005.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes: Challenges in Data Analysis S.A. Murphy Survey Research Center January, 2009.
Q-Learning and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan IMS/Bernoulli: July, 2004.
1 A Prediction Interval for the Misclassification Rate E.B. Laber & S.A. Murphy.
Sizing a Trial for the Development of Adaptive Treatment Strategies Alena I. Oetting The Society for Clinical Trials, 29th Annual Meeting St. Louis, MO.
Hypothesis Testing and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Schering-Plough Workshop May 2007 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan UNC: November, 2003.
1 A Confidence Interval for the Misclassification Rate S.A. Murphy & E.B. Laber.
Planning Survival Analysis Studies of Dynamic Treatment Regimes Z. Li & S.A. Murphy UNC October, 2009.
Statistical Issues in Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies for Chronic Disorders S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan CDC/ATSDR: March, 2005.
Hypothesis Testing and Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy, L. Gunter & B. Chakraborty ENAR March 2007.
1 Meeting the Future in Managing Chronic Disorders: Individually Tailored Strategies S.A. Murphy Herbert E. Robbins Collegiate Professorship in Statistics.
1 SMART Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy K. Lynch, J. McKay, D. Oslin & T.Ten Have UMichSpline February, 2006.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy ENAR March 2009.
Variable Selection for Tailoring Treatment
A Finite Sample Upper Bound on the Generalization Error for Q-Learning S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan CALD: February, 2005.
Methodology for Adaptive Treatment Strategies R21 DA S.A. Murphy For MCATS Oct. 8, 2009.
Dynamic Treatment Regimes, STAR*D & Voting D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy Psychiatric Biostatistics Symposium May 2009.
An Experimental Paradigm for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan February, 2004.
Methods for Estimating the Decision Rules in Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan IBC/ASC: July, 2004.
1 Possible Roles for Reinforcement Learning in Clinical Research S.A. Murphy November 14, 2007.
SMART Designs for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy MD Anderson December 2006.
Exploratory Analyses Aimed at Generating Proposals for Individualizing and Adapting Treatment S.A. Murphy BPRU, Hopkins September 22, 2009.
Meta-analysis & psychotherapy outcome research
SMART Experimental Designs for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy ISCTM, 2007.
1 A Prediction Interval for the Misclassification Rate E.B. Laber & S.A. Murphy.
Susan Murphy, PI University of Michigan Acknowledgements: MCAT network and NIH The Goal To facilitate methodological collaborations necessary for producing.
SMART Designs for Developing Dynamic Treatment Regimes S.A. Murphy Symposium on Causal Inference Johns Hopkins, January, 2006.
1 Machine/Reinforcement Learning in Clinical Research S.A. Murphy May 19, 2008.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy CCNIA Proposal Meeting 2008.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Strategies Convergence, 2008.
Revisiting an Old Topic: Probability of Replication D. Lizotte, E. Laber & S. Murphy Johns Hopkins Biostatistics September 23, 2009.
1 Variable Selection for Tailoring Treatment S.A. Murphy, L. Gunter & J. Zhu May 29, 2008.
Hypothesis Testing and Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy SCT May 2007.
Adaptive Treatment Strategies: Challenges in Data Analysis S.A. Murphy NY State Psychiatric Institute February, 2009.
1 Meeting the Future in Managing Chronic Disorders: Individually Tailored Strategies S.A. Murphy Univ. of Michigan In Honor of Clifford C. Clogg.
Chapter 9 Flashcards. measurement method that uses uniform procedures to collect, score, interpret, and report numerical results; usually has norms and.
Statistical Methods for Missing Data Roberta Harnett MAR 550 October 30, 2007.
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials and Treatment Policies S.A. Murphy UAlberta, 09/28/12 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint.
Overview of Adaptive Treatment Regimes Sachiko Miyahara Dr. Abdus Wahed.
The Mimix Command Reference Based Multiple Imputation For Sensitivity Analysis of Longitudinal Trials with Protocol Deviation Suzie Cro EMERGE.
Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trials and Treatment Policies S.A. Murphy MUCMD, 08/10/12 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual.
Name:Shanil Ebrahim, MSc, MSc, PhD Departments of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, and Anesthesia McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Stanford.
Today Ensemble Methods. Recap of the course. Classifier Fusion
Treatment-Resistant Depression Doug Maurer, DO, MPH, FAAFP Program Director Faculty Development Fellowship.
1 G Lect 13W Imputation (data augmentation) of missing data Multiple imputation Examples G Multiple Regression Week 13 (Wednesday)
STAR*D Objectives Compare relative efficacy of different treatment options –Goal is REMISSION, not just “response” –Less than half of patients with depression.
A REVIEW By Chi-Ming Kam Surajit Ray April 23, 2001 April 23, 2001.
Human and Optimal Exploration and Exploitation in Bandit Problems Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California. A Bayesian analysis of human.
Abstract VARIABLE SELECTION FOR DECISION MAKING IN MENTAL HEALTH Lacey Gunter 1,2, Ji Zhu 1, and Susan Murphy 1,2 Departments of Statistics 1 and Institute.
Chapter 11: The t Test for Two Related Samples. Related t Formulas.
SMART Trials for Developing Adaptive Treatment Strategies S.A. Murphy Workshop on Adaptive Treatment Designs NCDEU, 2006.
Date of download: 7/9/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Development of Antidrug Antibodies Against Adalimumab.
Categorical Data Aims Loglinear models Categorical data
How Should We Select and Define Trial Estimands
2019 Joint Statistical Meetings at Denver
Presentation transcript:

Inference for Clinical Decision Making Policies D. Lizotte, L. Gunter, S. Murphy INFORMS October 2008

2 Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression STAR*D A goal of the clinical trial is construct good treatment sequences for patients suffering from treatment resistant depression. The goal is to achieve remission.

3 SER, BUP, VEN CIT+BUS, CIT+BUP MIRT, NTPL2+Li, L2+THY TCP, MIRT+VEN Level 2 Max 12 Weeks Level 3 Max 12 Weeks Level 4 12 Weeks QIDS > 5 CIT Level 1 Max 12 Weeks QIDS > 5 QIDS ≤ 5 Follow-up QIDS ≤ 5 Follow-up QIDS ≤ 5 Follow-up QIDS ≤ 5 Follow-up Preference to Switch Preference to Augment

4 STAR*D Level 1 Observation: QIDS: Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms 16 Items. Score range: Self-reported. Preference for type of Level 2 treatment: Switch or Augment Level 2 Treatment Action: If Level 1 preference is Switch then switch to either Ser, Bup or Ven; if Level 1 preference is Augment then augment with Bup or Bus. Level 2 Observation: QIDS Preference for type of Level 3 treatment: Switch or Augment Level 3 Treatment Action: If Level 2 preference is Switch then switch to either Mirt or Ntp: if Level 2 preference is Augment then augment with Li or Thy Level 3 Observation: QIDS Patients exit to follow-up if remission is achieved (QIDS ≤ 5).

5 Construct the policy to maximize average sum of rewards Reward: Convert Level 2 and Level 3 QIDS scores to standardized percentiles → %QIDS Reward: R j =1-(%QIDS j -%5)/100 for j=2,3 If a patient remits in Level 2, R 2 =1+1, R 3 =0. Construct policy so as to maximize E[R 2 +R 3 ]

6 Batch version of Q-learning for finite horizon problems Approximate Q 3 by regressing R 3 on Levels 1 & 2 QIDS within each (present action, preference, past action category. The best level 3 action is and the value is

7 Batch version of Q-learning for finite horizon problems: Approximate Q 2 by regressing R 2 + V 3 on Level 1 QIDS within each present action x preference category. The best level 2 action is and the value is

8 Use voting across bootstrap samples to assess confidence 100 bootstrap samples Each sample produces a Q 2 ; for each level 1 QIDS score we calculate the level 2 action that maximizes Q 2 (o,a). This is a vote by this bootstrap sample for the action.

9

10 Conclusion If level 1 QIDS is >12 then Ven is best treatment action at level 2 If level 1 QIDS is <11 then Ser is best treatment action at level 2 If level 1 QIDS is around 11 or 12 then Ven and Ser are best treatment actions at level 2.

11 The Problem Many patients dropout of the study. Level 2Level 3 Remit38336 Move to next level Dropout Sum

12 Two Approaches to Study Dropout Complete Case Analysis (Remove all patients with incomplete data from the analysis)--- gross assumptions on why people do or do not dropout. N=1201→N=679. Use a Bayesian method: Multiple Imputation. This method multiply imputes the missing data. Intuitively, an imputation model is used to group similar patients. Data from similar patients who remain in the study is used to construct the imputations for the missing data of dropouts.

13

14

15 Conclusion If level 1 QIDS is > 20 then Ven and Bup are best treatment actions at level 2 If level 1 QIDS is <12 then Ven and Ser are best treatment actions at level 2 If level 1 QIDS is around 12 to 20 then Ven is best treatment action at level 2.

16 Discussion If reinforcement learning and modern day control methods are to be used with clinical trial data then these methods must be combined with modern missing data methods and methods for assessing confidence. The multiple imputation + bootstrap we used is likely conservative in terms of the assessment of confidence. We are developing more principled methods of assessing confidence.

17 This seminar can be found at: seminars/INFORMS10.08.ppt me with questions or if you would like a copy!

18