Showing 1–10 of 10 results for author: Azriel, D

Surgery duration prediction using multi-task feature selection

Authors: David Azriel, Yosef Rinott, Orna Tal, Benyamine Abbou, Nadav Rappoport

Abstract: Efficient optimization of operating room (OR) activity poses a significant challenge for hospital managers due to the complex and risky nature of the environment. The traditional "one size fits all" approach to OR scheduling is no longer practical, and personalized medicine is required to meet the diverse needs of patients, care providers, medical procedures, and system constraints within limited… ▽ More Efficient optimization of operating room (OR) activity poses a significant challenge for hospital managers due to the complex and risky nature of the environment. The traditional "one size fits all" approach to OR scheduling is no longer practical, and personalized medicine is required to meet the diverse needs of patients, care providers, medical procedures, and system constraints within limited resources. This paper aims to introduce a scientific and practical tool for predicting surgery durations and improving OR performance for maximum benefit to patients and the hospital. Previous works used machine-learning models for surgery duration prediction based on preoperative data. The models consider covariates known to the medical staff at the time of scheduling the surgery. Given a large number of covariates, model selection becomes crucial, and the number of covariates used for prediction depends on the available sample size. Our proposed approach utilizes multi-task regression to select a common subset of predicting covariates for all tasks with the same sample size while allowing the model's coefficients to vary between them. A regression task can refer to a single surgeon or operation type or the interaction between them. By considering these diverse factors, our method provides an overall more accurate estimation of the surgery durations, and the selected covariates that enter the model may help to identify the resources required for a specific surgery. We found that when the regression tasks were surgeon-based or based on the pair of operation type and surgeon, our suggested approach outperformed the compared baseline suggested in a previous study. However, our approach failed to reach the baseline for an operation-type-based task. △ Less

Submitted 20 March, 2024; v1 submitted 14 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

The Pairwise Matching Design is Optimal under Extreme Noise and Assignments

Authors: David Azriel, Abba M. Krieger, Adam Kapelner

Abstract: We consider the general performance of the difference-in-means estimator in an equally-allocated two-arm randomized experiment under common experimental endpoints such as continuous (regression), incidence, proportion, count and uncensored survival. We consider two sources of randomness: the subject-specific assignments and the contribution of unobserved subject-specific measurements. We then exam… ▽ More We consider the general performance of the difference-in-means estimator in an equally-allocated two-arm randomized experiment under common experimental endpoints such as continuous (regression), incidence, proportion, count and uncensored survival. We consider two sources of randomness: the subject-specific assignments and the contribution of unobserved subject-specific measurements. We then examine mean squared error (MSE) performance under a new, more realistic "simultaneous tail criterion". We prove that the pairwise matching design of Greevy et al. (2004) performs best asymptotically under this criterion when compared to other blocking designs. We also prove that the optimal design must be less random than complete randomization and more random than any deterministic, optimized allocation. Theoretical results are supported by simulations in all five response types. △ Less

Submitted 6 November, 2024; v1 submitted 11 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: 17 pages, 2 figures, 2 tables, 7pp supplement. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2212.01887

Optimal confidence interval for the difference of proportions

Authors: Almog Peer, David Azriel

Abstract: Estimating the probability of the binomial distribution is a basic problem, which appears in almost all introductory statistics courses and is performed frequently in various studies. In some cases, the parameter of interest is a difference between two probabilities, and the current work studies the construction of confidence intervals for this parameter when the sample size is small. Our goal is… ▽ More Estimating the probability of the binomial distribution is a basic problem, which appears in almost all introductory statistics courses and is performed frequently in various studies. In some cases, the parameter of interest is a difference between two probabilities, and the current work studies the construction of confidence intervals for this parameter when the sample size is small. Our goal is to find the shortest confidence intervals under the constraint of coverage probability being at least as large as a predetermined level. For the two-sample case, there is no known algorithm that achieves this goal, but different heuristics procedures have been suggested, and the present work aims at finding optimal confidence intervals. In the one-sample case, there is a known algorithm that finds optimal confidence intervals presented by Blyth and Still (1983). It is based on solving small and local optimization problems and then using an inversion step to find the global optimum solution. We show that this approach fails in the two-sample case and therefore, in order to find optimal confidence intervals, one needs to solve a global optimization problem, rather than small and local ones, which is computationally much harder. We present and discuss the suitable global optimization problem. Using the Gurobi package we find near-optimal solutions when the sample sizes are smaller than 15, and we compare these solutions to some existing methods, both approximate and exact. We find that the improvement in terms of lengths with respect to the best competitor varies between 1.5\% and 5\% for different parameters of the problem. Therefore, we recommend the use of the new confidence intervals when both sample sizes are smaller than 15. Tables of the confidence intervals are given in the Excel file in this link. △ Less

Submitted 20 August, 2024; v1 submitted 31 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

The Optimality of Blocking Designs in Equally and Unequally Allocated Randomized Experiments with General Response

Authors: David Azriel, Abba M. Krieger, Adam Kapelner

Abstract: We consider the performance of the difference-in-means estimator in a two-arm randomized experiment under common experimental endpoints such as continuous (regression), incidence, proportion and survival. We examine performance under both equal and unequal allocation to treatment groups and we consider both the Neyman randomization model and the population model. We show that in the Neyman model,… ▽ More We consider the performance of the difference-in-means estimator in a two-arm randomized experiment under common experimental endpoints such as continuous (regression), incidence, proportion and survival. We examine performance under both equal and unequal allocation to treatment groups and we consider both the Neyman randomization model and the population model. We show that in the Neyman model, where the only source of randomness is the treatment manipulation, there is no free lunch: complete randomization is minimax for the estimator's mean squared error. In the population model, where each subject experiences response noise with zero mean, the optimal design is the deterministic perfect-balance allocation. However, this allocation is generally NP-hard to compute and moreover, depends on unknown response parameters. When considering the tail criterion of Kapelner et al. (2021), we show the optimal design is less random than complete randomization and more random than the deterministic perfect-balance allocation. We prove that Fisher's blocking design provides the asymptotically optimal degree of experimental randomness. Theoretical results are supported by simulations in all considered experimental settings. △ Less

Submitted 6 November, 2024; v1 submitted 4 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Comments: 38 pages, 2 figures, 2 tables

The Role of Pairwise Matching in Experimental Design for an Incidence Outcome

Authors: Adam Kapelner, Abba M. Krieger, David Azriel

Abstract: We consider the problem of evaluating designs for a two-arm randomized experiment with an incidence (binary) outcome under a nonparametric general response model. Our two main results are that the priori pair matching design of Greevy et al. (2004) is (1) the optimal design as measured by mean squared error among all block designs which includes complete randomization. And (2), this pair-matching… ▽ More We consider the problem of evaluating designs for a two-arm randomized experiment with an incidence (binary) outcome under a nonparametric general response model. Our two main results are that the priori pair matching design of Greevy et al. (2004) is (1) the optimal design as measured by mean squared error among all block designs which includes complete randomization. And (2), this pair-matching design is minimax, i.e. it provides the lowest mean squared error under an adversarial response model. Theoretical results are supported by simulations and clinical trial data. △ Less

Submitted 1 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: 23 pages, 2 figures

Better Experimental Design by Hybridizing Binary Matching with Imbalance Optimization

Authors: Abba M. Krieger, David Azriel, Adam Kapelner

Abstract: We present a new experimental design procedure that divides a set of experimental units into two groups in order to minimize error in estimating an additive treatment effect. One concern is minimizing error at the experimental design stage is large covariate imbalance between the two groups. Another concern is robustness of design to misspecification in response models. We address both concerns in… ▽ More We present a new experimental design procedure that divides a set of experimental units into two groups in order to minimize error in estimating an additive treatment effect. One concern is minimizing error at the experimental design stage is large covariate imbalance between the two groups. Another concern is robustness of design to misspecification in response models. We address both concerns in our proposed design: we first place subjects into pairs using optimal nonbipartite matching, making our estimator robust to complicated non-linear response models. Our innovation is to keep the matched pairs extant, take differences of the covariate values within each matched pair and then we use the greedy switching heuristic of Krieger et al. (2019) or rerandomization on these differences. This latter step greatly reduce covariate imbalance to the rate $O_p(n^{-4})$ in the case of one covariate that are uniformly distributed. This rate benefits from the greedy switching heuristic which is $O_p(n^{-3})$ and the rate of matching which is $O_p(n^{-1})$. Further, our resultant designs are shown to be as random as matching which is robust to unobserved covariates. When compared to previous designs, our approach exhibits significant improvement in the mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator when the response model is nonlinear and performs at least as well when it the response model is linear. Our design procedure is found as a method in the open source R package available on CRAN called GreedyExperimentalDesign. △ Less

Submitted 1 February, 2021; v1 submitted 6 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: 18 pages, 2 tables, 2 figures

Improving the Power of the Randomization Test

Authors: Abba M. Krieger, David Azriel, Michael Sklar, Adam Kapelner

Abstract: We consider the problem of evaluating designs for a two-arm randomized experiment with the criterion being the power of the randomization test for the one-sided null hypothesis. Our evaluation assumes a response that is linear in one observed covariate, an unobserved component and an additive treatment effect where the only randomness comes from the treatment allocations. It is well-known that the… ▽ More We consider the problem of evaluating designs for a two-arm randomized experiment with the criterion being the power of the randomization test for the one-sided null hypothesis. Our evaluation assumes a response that is linear in one observed covariate, an unobserved component and an additive treatment effect where the only randomness comes from the treatment allocations. It is well-known that the power depends on the allocations' imbalance in the observed covariate and this is the reason for the classic restricted designs such as rerandomization. We show that power is also affected by two other design choices: the number of allocations in the design and the degree of linear dependence among the allocations. We prove that the more allocations, the higher the power and the lower the variability in the power. Designs that feature greater independence of allocations are also shown to have higher performance. Our theoretical findings and extensive simulation studies imply that the designs with the highest power provide thousands of highly independent allocations that each provide nominal imbalance in the observed covariates. These high powered designs exhibit less randomization than complete randomization and more randomization than recently proposed designs based on numerical optimization. Model choices for a practicing experimenter are rerandomization and greedy pair switching, where both outperform complete randomization and numerical optimization. The tradeoff we find also provides a means to specify the imbalance threshold parameter when rerandomizing. △ Less

Submitted 13 August, 2020; originally announced August 2020.

Comments: 31 pages, 6 figures

Optimal Rerandomization via a Criterion that Provides Insurance Against Failed Experiments

Authors: Adam Kapelner, Abba M. Krieger, Michael Sklar, David Azriel

Abstract: We present an optimized rerandomization design procedure for a non-sequential treatment-control experiment. Randomized experiments are the gold standard for finding causal effects in nature. But sometimes random assignments result in unequal partitions of the treatment and control group visibly seen as imbalance in observed covariates. There can additionally be imbalance on unobserved covariates.… ▽ More We present an optimized rerandomization design procedure for a non-sequential treatment-control experiment. Randomized experiments are the gold standard for finding causal effects in nature. But sometimes random assignments result in unequal partitions of the treatment and control group visibly seen as imbalance in observed covariates. There can additionally be imbalance on unobserved covariates. Imbalance in either observed or unobserved covariates increases treatment effect estimator error inflating the width of confidence regions and reducing experimental power. "Rerandomization" is a strategy that omits poor imbalance assignments by limiting imbalance in the observed covariates to a prespecified threshold. However, limiting this threshold too much can increase the risk of contracting error from unobserved covariates. We introduce a criterion that combines observed imbalance while factoring in the risk of inadvertently imbalancing unobserved covariates. We then use this criterion to locate the optimal rerandomization threshold based on the practitioner's level of desired insurance against high estimator error. We demonstrate the gains of our designs in simulation and in a dataset from a large randomized experiment in education. We provide an open source R package available on CRAN named OptimalRerandExpDesigns which generates designs according to our algorithm. △ Less

Submitted 25 January, 2021; v1 submitted 8 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

Comments: 27 pages, 5 figures, 2 tables, 2 algorithms

Harmonizing Fully Optimal Designs with Classic Randomization in Fixed Trial Experiments

Authors: Adam Kapelner, Abba M. Krieger, Uri Shalit, David Azriel

Abstract: There is a movement in design of experiments away from the classic randomization put forward by Fisher, Cochran and others to one based on optimization. In fixed-sample trials comparing two groups, measurements of subjects are known in advance and subjects can be divided optimally into two groups based on a criterion of homogeneity or "imbalance" between the two groups. These designs are far from… ▽ More There is a movement in design of experiments away from the classic randomization put forward by Fisher, Cochran and others to one based on optimization. In fixed-sample trials comparing two groups, measurements of subjects are known in advance and subjects can be divided optimally into two groups based on a criterion of homogeneity or "imbalance" between the two groups. These designs are far from random. This paper seeks to understand the benefits and the costs over classic randomization in the context of different performance criterions such as Efron's worst-case analysis. In the criterion that we motivate, randomization beats optimization. However, the optimal design is shown to lie between these two extremes. Much-needed further work will provide a procedure to find this optimal designs in different scenarios in practice. Until then, it is best to randomize. △ Less

Submitted 19 October, 2018; originally announced October 2018.

Comments: 19 pages, 4 figures, 2 tables

Convergence of Nonparametric Long-Memory Phase I Designs

Authors: Assaf P. Oron, David Azriel, Peter D. Hoff

Abstract: We examine nonparametric dose-finding designs that use toxicity estimates based on all available data at each dose allocation decision. We prove that one such design family, called here "interval design", converges almost surely to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), if the MTD is the only dose level whose toxicity rate falls within the pre-specified interval around the desired target rate. Another… ▽ More We examine nonparametric dose-finding designs that use toxicity estimates based on all available data at each dose allocation decision. We prove that one such design family, called here "interval design", converges almost surely to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), if the MTD is the only dose level whose toxicity rate falls within the pre-specified interval around the desired target rate. Another nonparametric family, called "point design", has a positive probability of not converging. In a numerical sensitivity study, a diverse sample of dose-toxicity scenarios was randomly generated. On this sample, the "interval design" convergence conditions are met far more often than the conditions for one-parameter design convergence (the Shen-O'Quigley conditions), suggesting that the interval-design conditions are less restrictive. Implications of these theoretical and numerical results for small-sample behavior of the designs, and for future research, are discussed. △ Less

Submitted 14 June, 2010; v1 submitted 18 August, 2009; originally announced August 2009.

Comments: New version uploaded. Lemma added that proves convergence of running point estimates based on martingale theory. Also simulation study added

Journal ref: International Journal of Biostatistics, Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 39, 2011