A Guide to Estimating Conditional Average Treatment Effects in Competing Risks Settings

Conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) are central to treatment decision-making in personalized medicine. In competing risks settings, estimating CATEs from survival data allows for patient-specific assessments of treatment effectiveness for a specific event of interest while properly accounting for alternative event types. This distinction is essential in the presence of comorbidities, where competing causes of death may otherwise confound the therapeutic benefit. Focusing on right-censored survival times with binary treatment, we examine CATEs defined as covariate-conditional differences in the absolute risk for the event of interest at a fixed time. To this end, we study meta-learners which adapt machine learning algorithms for CATE estimation in competing risks scenarios. We systematically compare six meta-learners, combining Cox regression or random survival forests for risk modeling with elastic net regression or random forests for direct CATE modeling. To provide practical guidance on model selection, we evaluate their performance in multiple simulation settings, that differ in hazard complexity, treatment heterogeneity, treatment assignment, event type distribution and censoring. To facilitate applied use, we provide the R package, crsurvlearners, which implements all considered approaches.

On the role of benchmarking data sets and simulations in method comparison studies

Method comparisons are essential to provide recommendations and guidance for applied researchers, who often have to choose from a plethora of available approaches. While many comparisons exist in the literature, these are often not neutral but favour a novel method. Apart from the choice of design and a proper reporting of the findings, there are different approaches concerning the underlying data for such method comparison studies. Most manuscripts on statistical methodology rely on simulation studies and provide a single real-world data set as an example to motivate and illustrate the methodology investigated. In the context of supervised learning, in contrast, methods are often evaluated using so-called benchmarking data sets, i.e. real-world data that serve as gold standard in the community. Simulation studies, on the other hand, are much less common in this context. The aim of this paper is to investigate differences and similarities between these approaches, to discuss their advantages and disadvantages and ultimately to develop new approaches to the evaluation of methods picking the best of both worlds. To this aim, we borrow ideas from different contexts such as mixed methods research and Clinical Scenario Evaluation.

Is there a role for statistics in artificial intelligence?

The research on and application of artificial intelligence (AI) has triggered a comprehensive scientific, economic, social and political discussion. Here we argue that statistics, as an interdisciplinary scientific field, plays a substantial role both for the theoretical and practical understanding of AI and for its future development. Statistics might even be considered a core element of AI. With its specialist knowledge of data evaluation, starting with the precise formulation of the research question and passing through a study design stage on to analysis and interpretation of the results, statistics is a natural partner for other disciplines in teaching, research and practice. This paper aims at contributing to the current discussion by highlighting the relevance of statistical methodology in the context of AI development. In particular, we discuss contributions of statistics to the field of artificial intelligence concerning methodological development, planning and design of studies, assessment of data quality and data collection, differentiation of causality and associations and assessment of uncertainty in results. Moreover, the paper also deals with the equally necessary and meaningful extension of curricula in schools and universities.