We present a probabilistic ranking model to identify the optimal treatment in multiple-response experiments. In contemporary practice, treatments are applied over individuals with the goal of achieving multiple ideal properties on them simultaneously. However, often there are competing properties, and the optimality of one cannot be achieved without compromising the optimality of another. Typically, we still want to know which treatment is the overall best. In our framework, we first formulate overall optimality in terms of treatment ranks. Then we infer the latent ranking that allow us to report treatments from optimal to least optimal, provided ideal desirable properties. We demonstrate through simulations and real data analysis how we can achieve reliability of inferred ranks in practice. We adopt a Bayesian approach and derive an associated Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm to fit our model to data. Finally, we discuss the prospects of adoption of our method as a standard tool for experiment evaluation in trials-based research.

Predictive algorithms are often trained by optimizing some loss function, to which regularization functions are added to impose a penalty for violating constraints. As expected, the addition of such regularization functions can change the minimizer of the objective. It is not well-understood which regularizers change the minimizer of the loss, and, when the minimizer does change, how it changes. We use property elicitation to take first steps towards understanding the joint relationship between the loss and regularization functions and the optimal decision for a given problem instance. In particular, we give a necessary and sufficient condition on loss and regularizer pairs for when a property changes with the addition of the regularizer, and examine some regularizers satisfying this condition standard in the fair machine learning literature. We empirically demonstrate how algorithmic decision-making changes as a function of both data distribution changes and hardness of the constraints.

Recent advances in dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) provide powerful optimal treatment searching algorithms, which are tailored to individuals' specific needs and able to maximize their expected clinical benefits. However, existing algorithms could suffer from insufficient sample size under optimal treatments, especially for chronic diseases involving long stages of decision-making. To address these challenges, we propose a novel individualized learning method which estimates the DTR with a focus on prioritizing alignment between the observed treatment trajectory and the one obtained by the optimal regime across decision stages. By relaxing the restriction that the observed trajectory must be fully aligned with the optimal treatments, our approach substantially improves the sample efficiency and stability of inverse probability weighted based methods. In particular, the proposed learning scheme builds a more general framework which includes the popular outcome weighted learning framework as a special case of ours. Moreover, we introduce the notion of stage importance scores along with an attention mechanism to explicitly account for heterogeneity among decision stages. We establish the theoretical properties of the proposed approach, including the Fisher consistency and finite-sample performance bound. Empirically, we evaluate the proposed method in extensive simulated environments and a real case study for COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Marc Siegel discusses the pros and cons of using AI in health care and how it's too early to decide whether it's entirely reliable on on'Fox News Tonight.' For a small percentage of cancer patients, doctors are unable to determine where in the body the disease originated. To help pinpoint the origin of the cancers of unknown primary (CUP), researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have created an artificial intelligence model that analyzes the patient's genetic information -- and predicts where the tumor first appeared. When using the new AI model for 900 patients with cancers of unknown origin, researchers found that they could accurately classify at least 40% of tumors, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?

The real-world testing of decisions made using causal machine learning models is an essential prerequisite for their successful application. We focus on evaluating and improving contextual treatment assignment decisions: these are personalised treatments applied to e.g. customers, each with their own contextual information, with the aim of maximising a reward. In this paper we introduce a model-agnostic framework for gathering data to evaluate and improve contextual decision making through Bayesian Experimental Design. Specifically, our method is used for the data-efficient evaluation of the regret of past treatment assignments. Unlike approaches such as A/B testing, our method avoids assigning treatments that are known to be highly sub-optimal, whilst engaging in some exploration to gather pertinent information. We achieve this by introducing an information-based design objective, which we optimise end-to-end. Our method applies to discrete and continuous treatments. Comparing our information-theoretic approach to baselines in several simulation studies demonstrates the superior performance of our proposed approach.

Uplift modeling is crucial in various applications ranging from marketing and policy-making to personalized recommendations. The main objective is to learn optimal treatment allocations for a heterogeneous population. A primary line of existing work modifies the loss function of the decision tree algorithm to identify cohorts with heterogeneous treatment effects. Another line of work estimates the individual treatment effects separately for the treatment group and the control group using off-the-shelf supervised learning algorithms. The former approach that directly models the heterogeneous treatment effect is known to outperform the latter in practice. However, the existing tree-based methods are mostly limited to a single treatment and a single control use case, except for a handful of extensions to multiple discrete treatments. In this paper, we fill this gap in the literature by proposing a generalization to the tree-based approaches to tackle multiple discrete and continuous-valued treatments. We focus on a generalization of the well-known causal tree algorithm due to its desirable statistical properties, but our generalization technique can be applied to other tree-based approaches as well. We perform extensive experiments to showcase the efficacy of our method when compared to other methods.

For mental disorders, patients' underlying mental states are non-observed latent constructs which have to be inferred from observed multi-domain measurements such as diagnostic symptoms and patient functioning scores. Additionally, substantial heterogeneity in the disease diagnosis between patients needs to be addressed for optimizing individualized treatment policy in order to achieve precision medicine. To address these challenges, we propose an integrated learning framework that can simultaneously learn patients' underlying mental states and recommend optimal treatments for each individual. This learning framework is based on the measurement theory in psychiatry for modeling multiple disease diagnostic measures as arising from the underlying causes (true mental states). It allows incorporation of the multivariate pre- and post-treatment outcomes as well as biological measures while preserving the invariant structure for representing patients' latent mental states. A multi-layer neural network is used to allow complex treatment effect heterogeneity. Optimal treatment policy can be inferred for future patients by comparing their potential mental states under different treatments given the observed multi-domain pre-treatment measurements. Experiments on simulated data and a real-world clinical trial data show that the learned treatment polices compare favorably to alternative methods on heterogeneous treatment effects, and have broad utilities which lead to better patient outcomes on multiple domains.

This study presents a systematic comparison of methods for individual treatment assignment, a general problem that arises in many applications and has received significant attention from economists, computer scientists, and social scientists. We characterize the various methods proposed in the literature into three general approaches: learning models to predict outcomes, learning models to predict causal effects, and learning models to predict optimal treatment assignments. We show analytically that optimizing for outcome or causal-effect prediction is not the same as optimizing for treatment assignments, and thus we should prefer learning models that optimize for treatment assignments. We then compare and contrast the three approaches empirically in the context of choosing, for each user, the best algorithm for playlist generation in order to optimize engagement. This is the first comparison of the different treatment assignment approaches on a real-world application at scale (based on more than half a billion individual treatment assignments). Our results show (i) that applying different algorithms to different users can improve streams substantially compared to deploying the same algorithm for everyone, (ii) that personalized assignments improve substantially with larger data sets, and (iii) that learning models by optimizing treatment assignments rather than outcome or causal-effect predictions can improve treatment assignment performance by more than 28%.