The Annals of Statistics

On testing conditional qualitative treatment effects

Chengchun Shi, Rui Song, and Wenbin Lu

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

Precision medicine is an emerging medical paradigm that focuses on finding the most effective treatment strategy tailored for individual patients. In the literature, most of the existing works focused on estimating the optimal treatment regime. However, there has been less attention devoted to hypothesis testing regarding the optimal treatment regime. In this paper, we first introduce the notion of conditional qualitative treatment effects (CQTE) of a set of variables given another set of variables and provide a class of equivalent representations for the null hypothesis of no CQTE. The proposed definition of CQTE does not assume any parametric form for the optimal treatment rule and plays an important role for assessing the incremental value of a set of new variables in optimal treatment decision making conditional on an existing set of prescriptive variables. We then propose novel testing procedures for no CQTE based on kernel estimation of the conditional contrast functions. We show that our test statistics have asymptotically correct size and nonnegligible power against some nonstandard local alternatives. The empirical performance of the proposed tests are evaluated by simulations and an application to an AIDS data set.

Article information

Source
Ann. Statist., Volume 47, Number 4 (2019), 2348-2377.

Dates
Received: April 2017
Revised: April 2018
First available in Project Euclid: 21 May 2019

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aos/1558425648

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/18-AOS1750

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3953454

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
07082289

Subjects
Primary: 62G08: Nonparametric regression 62G10: Hypothesis testing

Keywords
Conditional qualitative treatment effects kernel estimation nonstandard local alternatives optimal treatment decision making

Citation

Shi, Chengchun; Song, Rui; Lu, Wenbin. On testing conditional qualitative treatment effects. Ann. Statist. 47 (2019), no. 4, 2348--2377. doi:10.1214/18-AOS1750. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aos/1558425648


Export citation

References

  • Andrews, D. W. K. and Shi, X. (2013). Inference based on conditional moment inequalities. Econometrica 81 609–666.
  • Andrews, D. W. K. and Shi, X. (2014). Nonparametric inference based on conditional moment inequalities. J. Econometrics 179 31–45.
  • Armstrong, T. B. and Chan, H. P. (2016). Multiscale adaptive inference on conditional moment inequalities. J. Econometrics 194 24–43.
  • Chakraborty, B., Murphy, S. and Strecher, V. (2010). Inference for non-regular parameters in optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 19 317–343.
  • Chang, M., Lee, S. and Whang, Y.-J. (2015). Nonparametric tests of conditional treatment effects with an application to single-sex schooling on academic achievements. Econom. J. 18 307–346.
  • Chernozhukov, V., Lee, S. and Rosen, A. M. (2013). Intersection bounds: Estimation and inference. Econometrica 81 667–737.
  • Fan, J. and Li, R. (2001). Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 96 1348–1360.
  • Fan, A., Lu, W. and Song, R. (2016). Sequential advantage selection for optimal treatment regime. Ann. Appl. Stat. 10 32–53.
  • Fan, C., Lu, W., Song, R. and Zhou, Y. (2017). Concordance-assisted learning for estimating optimal individualized treatment regimes. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. 79 1565–1582.
  • Giné, E., Mason, D. M. and Zaitsev, A. Yu. (2003). The $L_{1}$-norm density estimator process. Ann. Probab. 31 719–768.
  • Gunter, L., Zhu, J. and Murphy, S. A. (2011). Variable selection for qualitative interactions. Stat. Methodol. 8 42–55.
  • Hsu, Y.-C. (2017). Consistent test for conditional treatment effects. Econom. J. 20 1–22.
  • Li, K.-C. and Duan, N. (1989). Regression analysis under link violation. Ann. Statist. 17 1009–1052.
  • Lu, W., Zhang, H. H. and Zeng, D. (2013). Variable selection for optimal treatment decision. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 22 493–504.
  • Luedtke, A. R. and van der Laan, M. J. (2016). Statistical inference for the mean outcome under a possibly non-unique optimal treatment strategy. Ann. Statist. 44 713–742.
  • Mason, D. M. and Polonik, W. (2009). Asymptotic normality of plug-in level set estimates. Ann. Appl. Probab. 19 1108–1142.
  • Murphy, S. A. (2003). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. 65 331–366.
  • Qian, M. and Murphy, S. A. (2011). Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules. Ann. Statist. 39 1180–1210.
  • Robins, J. M., Hernan, M. A. and Brumback, B. (2000). Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 11 550–560.
  • Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66 688–701.
  • Shergin, V. V. (1990). The central limit theorem for finitely dependent random variables. In Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics, Vol. II (Vilnius, 1989) 424–431. Mokslas, Vilnius.
  • Shi, C., Song, R. and Lu, W. (2019). Supplement to “On testing conditional qualitative treatment effects.” DOI:10.1214/18-AOS1750SUPP.
  • Wand, M. P. and Jones, M. C. (1993). Comparison of smoothing parameterizations in bivariate kernel density estimation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88 520–528.
  • Wang, H. (2009). Forward regression for ultra-high dimensional variable screening. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 104 1512–1524.
  • Watkins, C. J. C. H. and Dayan, P. (1992). Q-learning. Mach. Learn. 8 279–292.
  • White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica 50 1–25.
  • Zhang, B., Tsiatis, A. A., Laber, E. B. and Davidian, M. (2012). A robust method for estimating optimal treatment regimes. Biometrics 68 1010–1018.
  • Zhang, B., Tsiatis, A. A., Laber, E. B. and Davidian, M. (2013). Robust estimation of optimal dynamic treatment regimes for sequential treatment decisions. Biometrika 100 681–694.
  • Zhang, Y., Laber, E. B., Tsiatis, A. and Davidian, M. (2015). Using decision lists to construct interpretable and parsimonious treatment regimes. Biometrics 71 895–904.
  • Zhang, Y., Laber, E. B., Tsiatis, A. and Davidian, M. (2016). Interpretable dynamic treatment regimes. Preprint. Available at arXiv:1606.01472.
  • Zhao, Y., Zeng, D., Rush, A. J. and Kosorok, M. R. (2012). Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 107 1106–1118.
  • Zhao, Y.-Q., Zeng, D., Laber, E. B. and Kosorok, M. R. (2015). New statistical learning methods for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 110 583–598.

Supplemental materials

  • Supplement to “On testing conditional qualitative treatment effects”. Supplementary material includes additional simulation results and some proofs of asymptotic results.