Showing 1–8 of 8 results for author: Greene, T

From What Ifs to Insights: Counterfactuals in Causal Inference vs. Explainable AI

Authors: Galit Shmueli, David Martens, Jaewon Yoo, Travis Greene

Abstract: Counterfactuals play a pivotal role in the two distinct data science fields of causal inference (CI) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). While the core idea behind counterfactuals remains the same in both fields--the examination of what would have happened under different circumstances--there are key differences in how they are used and interpreted. We introduce a formal definition that… ▽ More Counterfactuals play a pivotal role in the two distinct data science fields of causal inference (CI) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). While the core idea behind counterfactuals remains the same in both fields--the examination of what would have happened under different circumstances--there are key differences in how they are used and interpreted. We introduce a formal definition that encompasses the multi-faceted concept of the counterfactual in CI and XAI. We then discuss how counterfactuals are used, evaluated, generated, and operationalized in CI vs. XAI, highlighting conceptual and practical differences. By comparing and contrasting the two, we hope to identify opportunities for cross-fertilization across CI and XAI. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Interpreting the Win Ratio in Hierarchical Composite Endpoints: Challenges, Limitations, and Perspectives with Examples from Chronic Kidney Disease Trials

Authors: Henrik F. Thomsen, Samvel B. Gasparyan, Julie F. Furberg, Christoph Tasto, Nicole Rethemeier, Patrick Schloemer, Tuo Wang, Niels Jongs, Yu Du, Tom Greene

Abstract: Win statistics based methods have gained traction as a method for analyzing Hierarchical Composite Endpoints (HCEs) in randomized clinical trials, particularly in cardiovascular and kidney disease research. HCEs offer several key advantages, including increased statistical power, the mitigation of competing risks, and hierarchical weighting of clinical importance for different outcome components.… ▽ More Win statistics based methods have gained traction as a method for analyzing Hierarchical Composite Endpoints (HCEs) in randomized clinical trials, particularly in cardiovascular and kidney disease research. HCEs offer several key advantages, including increased statistical power, the mitigation of competing risks, and hierarchical weighting of clinical importance for different outcome components. While, as summary measures, the win ratio (WR) along with the Net Benefit (NB) and the Win Odds (WO) provide a structured approach to analyzing HCEs, several concerns regarding their interpretability remain. In this paper, we explore critical aspects of WR interpretation that have received limited attention. Specifically, we discuss the challenge of defining an appropriate estimand in the context of HCEs using the WR, the difficulties in formulating a relevant causal question underlying the WR, and the dependency of the WR on the variance of its components, which complicates its role as an effect measure. Additionally, we highlight the non-collapsibility of the WR, akin to hazard and odds ratios, further complicating its interpretation. While the WR remains a valuable tool in clinical trials, its inherent limitations must be acknowledged to ensure its appropriate application and interpretation in regulatory and clinical decision-making. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2025; v1 submitted 8 April, 2025; originally announced April 2025.

Comments: 14 pages, 5 figures, 2 tables, Submitted to Statistics in Medicine

Semiparametric Joint Modeling to Estimate the Treatment Effect on a Longitudinal Surrogate with Application to Chronic Kidney Disease Trials

Authors: Xuan Wang, Jie Zhou, Layla Parast, Tom Greene

Abstract: In clinical trials where long follow-up is required to measure the primary outcome of interest, there is substantial interest in using an accepted surrogate outcome that can be measured earlier in time or with less cost to estimate a treatment effect. For example, in clinical trials of chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of a treatment is often demonstrated on a surrogate outcome, the longitu… ▽ More In clinical trials where long follow-up is required to measure the primary outcome of interest, there is substantial interest in using an accepted surrogate outcome that can be measured earlier in time or with less cost to estimate a treatment effect. For example, in clinical trials of chronic kidney disease (CKD), the effect of a treatment is often demonstrated on a surrogate outcome, the longitudinal trajectory of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, estimating the effect of a treatment on the GFR trajectory is complicated by the fact that GFR measurement can be terminated by the occurrence of a terminal event, such as death or kidney failure. Thus, to estimate this effect, one must consider both the longitudinal outcome of GFR, and the terminal event process. Available estimation methods either impose restrictive parametric assumptions with corresponding maximum likelihood estimation that is computationintensive or other assumptions not appropriate for the GFR setting. In this paper, we build a semiparametric framework to jointly model the longitudinal outcome and the terminal event, where the model for the longitudinal outcome is semiparametric, and the relationship between the longitudinal outcome and the terminal event is nonparametric. The proposed semiparametric joint model is flexible and can be extended to include nonlinear trajectory of the longitudinal outcome easily. An estimating equation based method is proposed to estimate the treatment effect on the slope of the longitudinal outcome (e.g., GFR slope). Theoretical properties of the proposed estimators are derived. Finite sample performance of the proposed method is evaluated through simulation studies. We illustrate the proposed method using data from the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trail to examine the effect of Losartan on GFR slope. △ Less

Submitted 18 December, 2024; originally announced December 2024.

Good intentions, unintended consequences: exploring forecasting harms

Authors: Bahman Rostami-Tabar, Travis Greene, Galit Shmueli, Rob J. Hyndman

Abstract: Organizations worldwide that rely on data-driven approaches regularly employ forecasting methods to enhance their planning and decision-making processes. While extensive research has examined the harms associated with traditional machine learning applications, relatively little attention has been given to the ethical implications of time series forecasting. However, forecasting presents distinct e… ▽ More Organizations worldwide that rely on data-driven approaches regularly employ forecasting methods to enhance their planning and decision-making processes. While extensive research has examined the harms associated with traditional machine learning applications, relatively little attention has been given to the ethical implications of time series forecasting. However, forecasting presents distinct ethical challenges due to its diverse organizational applications, varied objectives, and unique data processing, model development, and evaluation workflows. These distinctions complicate the direct application of existing machine learning harm taxonomies to common forecasting scenarios. To address this gap, we conduct multiple interviews with industry experts and academic researchers, systematically identifying and analyzing underexplored domains, use cases, and potential risks associated with forecasting. Our objective is to develop a novel taxonomy of forecasting-specific harms. Drawing inspiration from Microsoft Azure taxonomy for responsible innovation, we integrate a human-led inductive coding approach with AI-driven analysis to extract key categories of harm in forecasting. This taxonomy aims to support researchers and practitioners by fostering ethical reflection on their decision-making throughout the forecasting process. Additionally, we seek to establish a research agenda focused on identifying measures to mitigate potential harms in forecasting. By highlighting unique risks within forecasting, our work contributes to the broader discourse on machine learning ethics. △ Less

Submitted 12 March, 2025; v1 submitted 25 November, 2024; originally announced November 2024.

Comments: 42 pages

Backward Joint Model for the Dynamic Prediction of Both Competing Risk and Longitudinal Outcomes

Authors: Wenhao Li, Brad C. Astor, Wei Yang, Tom H. Greene, Liang Li

Abstract: Joint modeling is a useful approach to dynamic prediction of clinical outcomes using longitudinally measured predictors. When the outcomes are competing risk events, fitting the conventional shared random effects joint model often involves intensive computation, especially when multiple longitudinal biomarkers are be used as predictors, as is often desired in prediction problems. This paper propos… ▽ More Joint modeling is a useful approach to dynamic prediction of clinical outcomes using longitudinally measured predictors. When the outcomes are competing risk events, fitting the conventional shared random effects joint model often involves intensive computation, especially when multiple longitudinal biomarkers are be used as predictors, as is often desired in prediction problems. This paper proposes a new joint model for the dynamic prediction of competing risk outcomes. The model factorizes the likelihood into the distribution of the competing risks data and the distribution of longitudinal data given the competing risks data. It extends the basic idea of the recently published backward joint model (BJM) to the competing risk setting, and we call this model crBJM. This model also enables the prediction of future longitudinal data trajectories conditional on being at risk at a future time, a practically important problem that has not been studied in the statistical literature. The model fitting with the EM algorithm is efficient, stable and computationally fast, with a one-dimensional integral in the E-step and convex optimization for most parameters in the M-step, regardless of the number of longitudinal predictors. The model also comes with a consistent albeit less efficient estimation method that can be quickly implemented with standard software, ideal for model building and diagnostics. We study the numerical properties of the proposed method using simulations and illustrate its use in a chronic kidney disease study. △ Less

Submitted 30 August, 2024; v1 submitted 1 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Atomist or Holist? A Diagnosis and Vision for More Productive Interdisciplinary AI Ethics Dialogue

Authors: Travis Greene, Amit Dhurandhar, Galit Shmueli

Abstract: In response to growing recognition of the social impact of new AI-based technologies, major AI and ML conferences and journals now encourage or require papers to include ethics impact statements and undergo ethics reviews. This move has sparked heated debate concerning the role of ethics in AI research, at times devolving into name-calling and threats of "cancellation." We diagnose this conflict a… ▽ More In response to growing recognition of the social impact of new AI-based technologies, major AI and ML conferences and journals now encourage or require papers to include ethics impact statements and undergo ethics reviews. This move has sparked heated debate concerning the role of ethics in AI research, at times devolving into name-calling and threats of "cancellation." We diagnose this conflict as one between atomist and holist ideologies. Among other things, atomists believe facts are and should be kept separate from values, while holists believe facts and values are and should be inextricable from one another. With the goal of reducing disciplinary polarization, we draw on numerous philosophical and historical sources to describe each ideology's core beliefs and assumptions. Finally, we call on atomists and holists within the ever-expanding data science community to exhibit greater empathy during ethical disagreements and propose four targeted strategies to ensure AI research benefits society. △ Less

Submitted 12 November, 2022; v1 submitted 19 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: 9 pages, 1 figure, 2 tables. To be published in Patterns by Cell Press

An Efficient Approach for Optimizing the Cost-effective Individualized Treatment Rule Using Conditional Random Forest

Authors: Yizhe Xu, Tom H. Greene, Adam P. Bress, Brandon K. Bellows, Yue Zhang, Zugui Zhang, Paul Kolm, William S. Weintraub, Andrew S. Moran, Jincheng Shen

Abstract: Evidence from observational studies has become increasingly important for supporting healthcare policy making via cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses. Similar as in comparative effectiveness studies, health economic evaluations that consider subject-level heterogeneity produce individualized treatment rules (ITRs) that are often more cost-effective than one-size-fits-all treatment. Thus, it is of gre… ▽ More Evidence from observational studies has become increasingly important for supporting healthcare policy making via cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses. Similar as in comparative effectiveness studies, health economic evaluations that consider subject-level heterogeneity produce individualized treatment rules (ITRs) that are often more cost-effective than one-size-fits-all treatment. Thus, it is of great interest to develop statistical tools for learning such a cost-effective ITR (CE-ITR) under the causal inference framework that allows proper handling of potential confounding and can be applied to both trials and observational studies. In this paper, we use the concept of net-monetary-benefit (NMB) to assess the trade-off between health benefits and related costs. We estimate CE-ITR as a function of patients' characteristics that, when implemented, optimizes the allocation of limited healthcare resources by maximizing health gains while minimizing treatment-related costs. We employ the conditional random forest approach and identify the optimal CE-ITR using NMB-based classification algorithms, where two partitioned estimators are proposed for the subject-specific weights to effectively incorporate information from censored individuals. We conduct simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our proposals. We apply our top-performing algorithm to the NIH-funded Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) to illustrate the CE gains of assigning customized intensive blood pressure therapy. △ Less

Submitted 22 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: Submitted to Statistical Methods in Medical Research

How Personal is Machine Learning Personalization?

Authors: Travis Greene, Galit Shmueli

Abstract: Though used extensively, the concept and process of machine learning (ML) personalization have generally received little attention from academics, practitioners, and the general public. We describe the ML approach as relying on the metaphor of the person as a feature vector and contrast this with humanistic views of the person. In light of the recent calls by the IEEE to consider the effects of ML… ▽ More Though used extensively, the concept and process of machine learning (ML) personalization have generally received little attention from academics, practitioners, and the general public. We describe the ML approach as relying on the metaphor of the person as a feature vector and contrast this with humanistic views of the person. In light of the recent calls by the IEEE to consider the effects of ML on human well-being, we ask whether ML personalization can be reconciled with these humanistic views of the person, which highlight the importance of moral and social identity. As human behavior increasingly becomes digitized, analyzed, and predicted, to what extent do our subsequent decisions about what to choose, buy, or do, made both by us and others, reflect who we are as persons? This paper first explicates the term personalization by considering ML personalization and highlights its relation to humanistic conceptions of the person, then proposes several dimensions for evaluating the degree of personalization of ML personalized scores. By doing so, we hope to contribute to current debate on the issues of algorithmic bias, transparency, and fairness in machine learning. △ Less

Submitted 23 December, 2019; v1 submitted 17 December, 2019; originally announced December 2019.