Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Medical Deconfounder: Assessing Treatment Effects with Electronic Health Records

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1904.02098 v2 pith:GAEI7QU6 submitted 2019-04-03 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords medicaldeconfoundertreatmentconfounderconfounderseffectsehrsmedications
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The treatment effects of medications play a key role in guiding medical prescriptions. They are usually assessed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are expensive. Recently, large-scale electronic health records (EHRs) have become available, opening up new opportunities for more cost-effective assessments. However, assessing a treatment effect from EHRs is challenging: it is biased by unobserved confounders, unmeasured variables that affect both patients' medical prescription and their outcome, e.g. the patients' social economic status. To adjust for unobserved confounders, we develop the medical deconfounder, a machine learning algorithm that unbiasedly estimates treatment effects from EHRs. The medical deconfounder first constructs a substitute confounder by modeling which medications were prescribed to each patient; this substitute confounder is guaranteed to capture all multi-medication confounders, observed or unobserved (arXiv:1805.06826). It then uses this substitute confounder to adjust for the confounding bias in the analysis. We validate the medical deconfounder on two simulated and two real medical data sets. Compared to classical approaches, the medical deconfounder produces closer-to-truth treatment effect estimates; it also identifies effective medications that are more consistent with the findings in the medical literature.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools