Evidence mapPaperPMID 40694348Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Predictive Modeling of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in RCTs: A Scoping Review.

Joe V Selby, Carolien C H M Maas, Bruce H Fireman, David M Kent

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  2. Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Joe V SelbyDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
Carolien C H M MaasTufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bruce H FiremanDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.
David M KentTufts Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUM1TR004398 · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · 2025 to 2025
$10.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement of 2020 proposed predictive modeling for identifying heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It described 2 approaches: risk modeling, which develops a multivariable model predicting individual baseline risk of study outcomes and then examines treatment effects across strata of predicted risk, and effect modeling, which develops a model that directly predicts individual treatment effects using a variety of regression and machine learning methods. Objective: To identify, describe, and evaluate findings from reports that cited the PATH Statement and presented predictive modeling of HTE in RCTs. Evidence Review: Reports were identified using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and SCOPUS through July 5, 2024. Using double review with adjudication, reports were assessed for consistency with PATH Statement recommendations, credibility of HTE findings (applying criteria adapted from the Instrument to Assess Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses), and clinical importance of credible findings. Findings: A total of 65 reports (presenting 31 risk models and 41 effect models) analyzing 162 RCTs were identified, with credible, clinically important HTE in 24 reports (37%). Contrary to PATH Statement recommendations, only 25 of 48 studies with positive overall findings included a risk model. Most effect models were exploratory, including multiple predictors with little prior evidence for HTE. Claims of HTE were noted in 23 risk modeling and 31 effect modeling reports but were more likely to meet credibility criteria with risk modeling (20 of 23 reports [87%]) than effect modeling (10 of 31 reports [32%]). For effect modeling, validation of HTE findings in external datasets was critical in establishing credibility. Credible HTE from either approach was usually judged clinically important (24 of 30 reports [80%]). In the 19 reports from RCTs suggesting overall treatment benefits, modeling identified subgroups of 5% to 67% of patients predicted to experience no benefit or net treatment harm. In the 5 reports that found no overall benefit, subgroups of 25% to 60% of patients were nevertheless predicted to benefit. Conclusions and Relevance: This scoping review of 65 reports of multivariable predictive modeling of HTE in RCTs identified credible, clinically important HTE in 37%. Risk modeling was more likely than effect modeling to find credible HTE, but external validation of HTE findings served to increase the credibility of findings from exploratory effect models.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansTreatment Effect HeterogeneityTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40694348
PMCPMC12284745

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.