Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization (CARA) designs are gaining increasing attention.

Reporting quality is an important topic in clinical trial research articles, as it can impact clinical decisions. In this article, we test the ability of large language models to assess the reporting quality of this type of article using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We create CONSORT-QA, an evaluation corpus from two studies on abstract reporting quality with CONSORT-abstract standards. We then evaluate the ability of different large generative language models (from the general domain or adapted to the biomedical domain) to correctly assess CONSORT criteria with different known prompting methods, including Chain-of-thought. Our best combination of model and prompting method achieves 85% accuracy. Using Chain-of-thought adds valuable information on the model's reasoning for completing the task.

Surrogate markers are most commonly studied within the context of randomized clinical trials. However, the need for alternative outcomes extends beyond these settings and may be more pronounced in real-world public health and social science research, where randomized trials are often impractical. Research on identifying surrogates in real-world non-randomized data is scarce, as available statistical approaches for evaluating surrogate markers tend to rely on the assumption that treatment is randomized. While the few methods that allow for non-randomized treatment/exposure appropriately handle confounding individual characteristics, they do not offer a way to examine surrogate heterogeneity with respect to patient characteristics. In this paper, we propose a framework to assess surrogate heterogeneity in real-world, i.e., non-randomized, data and implement this framework using various meta-learners. Our approach allows us to quantify heterogeneity in surrogate strength with respect to patient characteristics while accommodating confounders through the use of flexible, off-the-shelf machine learning methods. In addition, we use our framework to identify individuals for whom the surrogate is a valid replacement of the primary outcome. We examine the performance of our methods via a simulation study and application to examine heterogeneity in the surrogacy of hemoglobin A1c as a surrogate for fasting plasma glucose.

Learning the Individual Treatment Effect (ITE) is essential for personalized decision making, yet causal inference has traditionally focused on aggregated treatment effects. While integrating conformal prediction with causal inference can provide valid uncertainty quantification for ITEs, the resulting prediction intervals are often excessively wide, limiting their practical utility. To address this limitation, we introduce \underline{S}urrogate-assisted \underline{C}onformal \underline{I}nference for \underline{E}fficient I\underline{N}dividual \underline{C}ausal \underline{E}ffects (SCIENCE), a framework designed to construct more efficient prediction intervals for ITEs. SCIENCE applies to various data configurations, including semi-supervised and surrogate-assisted semi-supervised learning. It accommodates covariate shifts between source data, which contain primary outcomes, and target data, which may include only surrogate outcomes or covariates. Leveraging semi-parametric efficiency theory, SCIENCE produces rate double-robust prediction intervals under mild rate convergence conditions, permitting the use of flexible non-parametric models to estimate nuisance functions. We quantify efficiency gains by comparing semi-parametric efficiency bounds with and without the incorporation of surrogates. Simulation studies demonstrate that our surrogate-assisted intervals offer substantial efficiency improvements over existing methods while maintaining valid group-conditional coverage. Applied to the phase 3 Moderna COVE COVID-19 vaccine trial, SCIENCE illustrates how multiple surrogate markers can be leveraged to generate more efficient prediction intervals.

One of the most promising applications of machine learning (ML) in computational physics is to accelerate the solution of partial differential equations (PDEs). The key objective of ML-based PDE solvers is to output a sufficiently accurate solution faster than standard numerical methods, which are used as a baseline comparison. We first perform a systematic review of the ML-for-PDE solving literature. Of articles that use ML to solve a fluid-related PDE and claim to outperform a standard numerical method, we determine that 79% (60/76) compare to a weak baseline. Second, we find evidence that reporting biases, especially outcome reporting bias and publication bias, are widespread. We conclude that ML-for-PDE solving research is overoptimistic: weak baselines lead to overly positive results, while reporting biases lead to underreporting of negative results. To a large extent, these issues appear to be caused by factors similar to those of past reproducibility crises: researcher degrees of freedom and a bias towards positive results. We call for bottom-up cultural changes to minimize biased reporting as well as top-down structural reforms intended to reduce perverse incentives for doing so.

An individualized treatment rule (ITR) is a decision rule that recommends treatments for patients based on their individual feature variables. In many practices, the ideal ITR for the primary outcome is also expected to cause minimal harm to other secondary outcomes. Therefore, our objective is to learn an ITR that not only maximizes the value function for the primary outcome, but also approximates the optimal rule for the secondary outcomes as closely as possible. To achieve this goal, we introduce a fusion penalty to encourage the ITRs based on different outcomes to yield similar recommendations. Two algorithms are proposed to estimate the ITR using surrogate loss functions. We prove that the agreement rate between the estimated ITR of the primary outcome and the optimal ITRs of the secondary outcomes converges to the true agreement rate faster than if the secondary outcomes are not taken into consideration. Furthermore, we derive the non-asymptotic properties of the value function and misclassification rate for the proposed method. Finally, simulation studies and a real data example are used to demonstrate the finite-sample performance of the proposed method.

In many causal inference applications, the primary outcomes are missing for a non-trivial number of observations. For instance, in studies on long-term health effects of medical interventions, some measurements require expensive testing and a loss to follow-up is common (Hogan et al., 2004). In evaluating commercial online ad effectiveness, some individuals may drop out from the panel because they use multiple devices (Shankar et al., 2023), leading to missing revenue measures. In many of these studies, however, there often exist short-term outcomes that are easier and faster to measure, e.g., short-term health measures or an online ad's click-through rate, that are observed for a greater share of the sample. These outcomes, which are typically informative about the primary outcomes themselves, are refered to as surrogate outcomes or surrogates. There is a rich causal inference literature addressing missing outcome data. Simply restricting to data with observed primary outcomes may induce strong bias (Hernán and Robins, 2010). Ignoring unlabeled data also reduces the effective sample size for estimating the treatment effects and inflates the variance. Chakrabortty et al. (2022) considered the missing completely at random (MCAR) setting and showed that incorporating unlabeled data reduces variance.

We describe the results of applying causal discovery methods on the data from a multi-site clinical trial, on the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT). The trial was inconclusive, with no clear benefits consistently shown for the whole cohort. However, there were questions regarding the reliability of the diagnosis and treatment protocol for a geographic subgroup of the cohort. With the inclusion of medical context in the form of domain knowledge, causal discovery is used to demonstrate regional discrepancies and to frame the regional transportability of the results. Furthermore, we show that, globally and especially for some subgroups, the treatment has significant causal effects, thus offering a more refined view of the trial results.

We consider the optimal decision-making problem in a primary sample of interest with multiple auxiliary sources available. The outcome of interest is limited in the sense that it is only observed in the primary sample. In reality, such multiple data sources may belong to different populations and thus cannot be combined directly. This paper proposes a novel calibrated optimal decision rule (CODR) to address the limited outcome, by leveraging the shared pattern in multiple data sources. Under a mild and testable assumption that the conditional means of intermediate outcomes in different samples are equal given baseline covariates and the treatment information, we can show that the calibrated mean outcome of interest under the CODR is unbiased and more efficient than using the primary sample solely. Extensive experiments on simulated datasets demonstrate empirical validity and improvement of the proposed CODR, followed by a real application on the MIMIC-III as the primary sample with auxiliary data from eICU.