ABSTRACT
Objective Measuring the performance of models that predict individualized treatment effect is challenging because the outcomes of two alternative treatments are inherently unobservable in one patient. The C-for-benefit was proposed to measure discriminative ability. We aimed to propose metrics of calibration and overall performance for models predicting treatment effect.
Study Design and Setting Similar to the previously proposed C-for-benefit, we defined observed pairwise treatment effect as the difference between outcomes in pairs of matched patients with different treatment assignment. We redefined the E-statistics, the cross-entropy, and the Brier score into metrics for measuring a model’s ability to predict treatment effect. In a simulation study, the metric values of deliberately “perturbed models” were compared to those of the data-generating model, i.e., “optimal model”. To illustrate the performance metrics, models predicting treatment effects were applied to the data of the Diabetes Prevention Program.
Results As desired, performance metric values of “perturbed models” were consistently worse than those of the “optimal model” (Eavg-for-benefit≥0.070 versus 0.001, E90-for-benefit≥0.115 versus 0.003, cross-entropy-for-benefit≥0.757 versus 0.733, Brier-for-benefit≥0.215 versus 0.212). Calibration, discriminative ability, and overall performance of three different models were similar in the case study.
Conclusion The proposed metrics are useful to assess the calibration and overall performance of models predicting treatment effect.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT00004992
Funding Statement
This work was partially supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award: the Predictive Analytics Resource Center (PARC) [SA.Tufts.PARC.OSCO.2018.01.25].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Information on the process of obtaining the study dataset is available at the NIDDK Repository website (https://repository.niddk.nih.gov/studies/dpp/). The dataset can be obtained by submitting of a formal request to the NIDDK Repository.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Added discussion on matching procedure and additional supplemental figures.
Data Availability
Information on the process of obtaining the study dataset is available at the NIDDK Repository website (https://repository.niddk.nih.gov/studies/dpp/). The dataset can be obtained by submitting of a formal request to the NIDDK Repository.