
TL;DR
This paper explores how combined randomized and observational data can evaluate whether physicians outperform standard trial-based treatment strategies for individual patients.
Contribution
It introduces a formal framework with bounds to assess when physician discretion surpasses trial-based recommendations using nested data.
Findings
Derived sharp bounds on physician performance relative to trial strategies.
Identified conditions where clinical data justify physician discretion over trial recommendations.
Provided insights into when stronger evidence is needed for personalized treatment decisions.
Abstract
Clinical trials usually target average treatment effects, but treatment decisions are made for individuals. This tension motivates a common criticism of evidence-based medicine: a treatment that is beneficial on average may be inappropriate for a particular patient, and skilled physicians may outperform rigid adherence to the strategy that performed best in a randomized trial. We consider how randomized and observational data from the same target population can be used to assess that possibility. Specifically, we study settings in which a randomized trial is nested within an observational cohort, so that outcomes are observed under treatment, control, and usual care. We ask what the observed data can reveal about how often physicians outperform the strategy suggested by the trial. We define a gain score to formalize this comparison and derive sharp bounds on the proportion of physicians…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
