Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41131891›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026

Evaluating treatment benefit predictors using observational data: contending with identification and confounding bias.

Yuan Xia, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Paul Gustafson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Yuan XiaDepartment of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6876-6617
Mohsen SadatsafaviDepartment of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0419-7862
Paul GustafsonDepartment of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2375-5006

Funding

NSERC Discovery RGPIN-2019-03957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A treatment benefit predictor (TBP) is a function that maps patient characteristics to a putative treatment benefit for that patient. Such predictors support optimizing individualized treatment decisions, which are central to precision medicine. However, evaluating the predictive performance of a TBP is challenging, as this often must be conducted in a sample where treatment assignment is not random. After briefly reviewing several metrics for evaluating TBPs, we show conceptually how to evaluate a prespecified TBP using observational data from the target population, for a binary treatment decision at a single time point. We exemplify with a particular measure of discrimination (the concentration of benefit index) and a particular measure of calibration (the moderate calibration curve). The population-level definitions of these metrics involve the latent treatment benefit variable, but we show identification by re-expressing the respective estimands in terms of the distribution of observable data only. We also show that in the absence of full confounding control, bias propagates in a more complex manner than when targeting more commonly encountered estimands. We find the patterns of biases are often unpredictable, and general intuition about the direction of bias in causal effect estimates does not hold in the present context.

Indexed as

Observational Studies as TopicBiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumansPrecision MedicineTreatment Outcomecalibrationconfounding biasdiscriminationprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID41131891
PMCPMC13066335

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.