Impact of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity on the Estimation of Individualized Treatment Rules for Count Outcomes

There is growing interest in tailoring treatment decisions to individual patient characteristics, but few studies have examined the implementation and performance of individualized treatment rules (ITRs) for count data. Our objective was to compare ITR methods in randomized trials with count outcomes and explore the impact of sample size and distribution of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) on the validity of treatment recommendations. We conducted a simulation study where patients were randomized to receive one of two treatments and created five responder strata to reflect different HTE scenarios. Various ITR methods were used to estimate treatment effects and were evaluated in terms of value function and accuracy. We also conducted a case study involving patients with multiple sclerosis. All ITR methods performed better under favorable conditions such as larger sample size, greater treatment heterogeneity, or fewer neutral patients (also known as equivalent treatments effects), but they were outperformed by fixed treatment strategies with smaller sample sizes or limited HTE. However, larger sample sizes can compensate ITRs for smaller HTEs and high HTEs can compensate ITRs for limited data. In the case study, we identified HTE and developed a tree-based ITR that outperformed fixed treatment recommendations. In conclusion, ITR performance can be influenced by sample size and the distribution of HTE, as well as their interactions. Simulation scenarios, informed by clinical insights, can help us determine if HTE estimation is feasible and, if so, identify the most effective ITR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biometrical Journal
Published
2026-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.70119
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity on the Estimation of Individualized Treatment Rules for Count Outcomes

Thomas P. A. Debray, Gabrielle Simoneau, Carl de Moor, Xiaotong Jiang et al.
Biometrical Journal
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
article

Impact of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity on the Estimation of Individualized Treatment Rules for Count Outcomes

Thomas P. A. Debray, Gabrielle Simoneau, Carl de Moor, Xiaotong Jiang, Changyu Shen, Fabio Pellegrini, Bora Youn
article en

Abstract

There is growing interest in tailoring treatment decisions to individual patient characteristics, but few studies have examined the implementation and performance of individualized treatment rules (ITRs) for count data. Our objective was to compare ITR methods in randomized trials with count outcomes and explore the impact of sample size and distribution of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) on the validity of treatment recommendations. We conducted a simulation study where patients were randomized to receive one of two treatments and created five responder strata to reflect different HTE scenarios. Various ITR methods were used to estimate treatment effects and were evaluated in terms of value function and accuracy. We also conducted a case study involving patients with multiple sclerosis. All ITR methods performed better under favorable conditions such as larger sample size, greater treatment heterogeneity, or fewer neutral patients (also known as equivalent treatments effects), but they were outperformed by fixed treatment strategies with smaller sample sizes or limited HTE. However, larger sample sizes can compensate ITRs for smaller HTEs and high HTEs can compensate ITRs for limited data. In the case study, we identified HTE and developed a tree-based ITR that outperformed fixed treatment recommendations. In conclusion, ITR performance can be influenced by sample size and the distribution of HTE, as well as their interactions. Simulation scenarios, informed by clinical insights, can help us determine if HTE estimation is feasible and, if so, identify the most effective ITR.

Biometrical JournalVol. 68(2)
Biogen (United States) (US), Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (NL)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.