ArticlePLOS digital health2024
An interpretable framework to identify responsive subgroups from clinical trials regarding treatment effects: Application to treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Poor Outcomes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
- Molecular heterogeneity in human stroke - What can we learn from the peripheral blood transcriptome?Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized Clinical trials (RCT) suffer from a high failure rate which could be caused by heterogeneous responses to treatment. Despite many models being developed to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE), there remains a lack of interpretable methods to identify responsive subgroups. This work aims to develop a framework to identify subgroups based on treatment effects that prioritize model interpretability. The proposed framework leverages an ensemble uplift tree method to generate descriptive decision rules that separate samples given estimated responses to the treatment. Subsequently, we select a complementary set of these decision rules and rank them using a sparse linear model. To address the trial's limited sample size problem, we proposed a data augmentation strategy by borrowing control patients from external studies and generating synthetic data. We apply the proposed framework to a failed randomized clinical trial for investigating an intracerebral hemorrhage therapy plan. The Qini-scores show that the proposed data augmentation strategy plan can boost the model's performance and the framework achieves greater interpretability by selecting complementary descriptive rules without compromising estimation quality. Our model derives clinically meaningful subgroups. Specifically, we find those patients with Diastolic Blood Pressure≥70 mm hg and Systolic Blood Pressure<215 mm hg benefit more from intensive blood pressure reduction therapy. The proposed interpretable HTE analysis framework offers a promising potential for extracting meaningful insight from RCTs with neutral treatment effects. By identifying responsive subgroups, our framework can contribute to developing personalized treatment strategies for patients more efficiently.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.