Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40079648›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Guidelines and Best Practices for the Use of Targeted Maximum Likelihood and Machine Learning When Estimating Causal Effects of Exposures on Time-To-Event Outcomes.

Denis Talbot, Awa Diop, Miceline Mésidor, Yohann Chiu, Caroline Sirois, Andrew J Spieker, Antoine Pariente, Pernelle Noize, Marc Simard, Miguel Angel Luque Fernandez and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Rituximab Maintenance Added to Ibrutinib-Containing Therapy in Younger, Untreated Patients With Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Results From the TRIANGLE Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Denis TalbotDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0431-3314
Awa DiopDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Miceline MésidorDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Yohann ChiuFaculté de Pharmacie, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Caroline SiroisAxe Santé des Populations et Pratiques Optimales en Santé, Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Andrew J SpiekerDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0548-8311
Antoine ParienteUniversity of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Pernelle NoizeUniversity of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Marc SimardDépartement de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Miguel Angel Luque FernandezInequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6683-5164
Michael SchomakerLudwig-Maximilans-Universität, München, Germany.
Kenji FujitaKolling Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Danijela GnjidicSchool of Pharmacy and Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mireille E SchnitzerFaculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8049-9646

Funding

Canada Research ChairsCIHRFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInternational Society for Pharmacoepidemiology
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) is an increasingly popular framework for the estimation of causal effects. It requires modeling both the exposure and outcome but is doubly robust in the sense that it is valid if at least one of these models is correctly specified. In addition, TMLE allows for flexible modeling of both the exposure and outcome with machine learning methods. This provides better control for measured confounders since the model specification automatically adapts to the data, instead of needing to be specified by the analyst a priori. Despite these methodological advantages, TMLE remains less popular than alternatives in part because of its less accessible theory and implementation. While some tutorials have been proposed, none address the case of a time-to-event outcome. This tutorial provides a detailed step-by-step explanation of the implementation of TMLE for estimating the effect of a point binary or multilevel exposure on a time-to-event outcome, modeled as counterfactual survival curves and causal hazard ratios. The tutorial also provides guidelines on how best to use TMLE in practice, including aspects related to study design, choice of covariates, controlling biases and use of machine learning. R-code is provided to illustrate each step using simulated data ( https://github.com/detal9/SurvTMLE). To facilitate implementation, a general R function implementing TMLE with options to use machine learning is also provided. The method is illustrated in a real-data analysis concerning the effectiveness of statins for the prevention of a first cardiovascular disease among older adults in Québec, Canada, between 2013 and 2018.

Indexed as

CausalityMachine LearningHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalProportional Hazards Modelscausal inferencedouble robustnessmachine learningobservational studiessurvival analysistargeted maximum likelihood estimation

Identifiers

PMID40079648
PMCPMC11905698

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.