No Arabic abstract
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a quantitative approach to the drug benefit-risk assessment (BRA) which allows for consistent comparisons by summarising all benefits and risks in a single score. The MCDA consists of several components, one of which is the utility (or loss) score function that defines how benefits and risks are aggregated into a single quantity. While a linear utility score is one of the most widely used approach in BRA, it is recognised that it can result in counter-intuitive decisions, for example, recommending a treatment with extremely low benefits or high risks. To overcome this problem, alternative approaches to the scores construction, namely, product, multi-linear and Scale Loss Score models, were suggested. However, to date, the majority of arguments concerning the differences implied by these models are heuristic. In this work, we consider four models to calculate the aggregated utility/loss scores and compared their performance in an extensive simulation study over many different scenarios, and in a case study. It is found that the product and Scale Loss Score models provide more intuitive treatment recommendation decisions in the majority of scenarios compared to the linear and multi-linear models, and are more robust to the correlation in the criteria.
In this paper we present an algorithm to compute risk averse policies in Markov Decision Processes (MDP) when the total cost criterion is used together with the average value at risk (AVaR) metric. Risk averse policies are needed when large deviations from the expected behavior may have detrimental effects, and conventional MDP algorithms usually ignore this aspect. We provide conditions for the structure of the underlying MDP ensuring that approximations for the exact problem can be derived and solved efficiently. Our findings are novel inasmuch as average value at risk has not previously been considered in association with the total cost criterion. Our method is demonstrated in a rapid deployment scenario, whereby a robot is tasked with the objective of reaching a target location within a temporal deadline where increased speed is associated with increased probability of failure. We demonstrate that the proposed algorithm not only produces a risk averse policy reducing the probability of exceeding the expected temporal deadline, but also provides the statistical distribution of costs, thus offering a valuable analysis tool.
A novel aggregation scheme increases power in randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments when the intervention possesses a robust and well-articulated theory of change. Longitudinal data analyzing interventions often include multiple observations on individuals, some of which may be more likely to manifest a treatment effect than others. An interventions theory of change provides guidance as to which of those observations are best situated to exhibit that treatment effect. Our power-maximizing weighting for repeated-measurements with delayed-effects scheme, PWRD aggregation, converts the theory of change into a test statistic with improved Pitman efficiency, delivering tests with greater statistical power. We illustrate this method on an IES-funded cluster randomized trial testing the efficacy of a reading intervention designed to assist early elementary students at risk of falling behind their peers. The salient theory of change holds program benefits to be delayed and non-uniform, experienced after a students performance stalls. This intervention is not found to have an effect, but the PWRD techniques effect on power is found to be comparable to that of a doubling of (cluster-level) sample size.
Risk evaluation to identify individuals who are at greater risk of cancer as a result of heritable pathogenic variants is a valuable component of individualized clinical management. Using principles of Mendelian genetics, Bayesian probability theory, and variant-specific knowledge, Mendelian models derive the probability of carrying a pathogenic variant and developing cancer in the future, based on family history. Existing Mendelian models are widely employed, but are generally limited to specific genes and syndromes. However, the upsurge of multi-gene panel germline testing has spurred the discovery of many new gene-cancer associations that are not presently accounted for in these models. We have developed PanelPRO, a flexible, efficient Mendelian risk prediction framework that can incorporate an arbitrary number of genes and cancers, overcoming the computational challenges that arise because of the increased model complexity. We implement an eleven-gene, eleven-cancer model, the largest Mendelian model created thus far, based on this framework. Using simulations and a clinical cohort with germline panel testing data, we evaluate model performance, validate the reverse-compatibility of our approach with existing Mendelian models, and illustrate its usage. Our implementation is freely available for research use in the PanelPRO R package.
The expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems has shown the potential to generate enormous social good while also raising serious ethical and safety concerns. AI technology is increasingly adopted in transportation. A survey of various in-vehicle technologies found that approximately 64% of the respondents used a smartphone application to assist with their travel. The top-used applications were navigation and real-time traffic information systems. Among those who used smartphones during their commutes, the top-used applications were navigation and entertainment. There is a pressing need to address relevant social concerns to allow for the development of systems of intelligent agents that are informed and cognizant of ethical standards. Doing so will facilitate the responsible integration of these systems in society. To this end, we have applied Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to develop a formal Multi-Attribute Impact Assessment (MAIA) questionnaire for examining the social and ethical issues associated with the uptake of AI. We have focused on the domain of autonomous vehicles (AVs) because of their imminent expansion. However, AVs could serve as a stand-in for any domain where intelligent, autonomous agents interact with humans, either on an individual level (e.g., pedestrians, passengers) or a societal level.
In domains such as criminal justice, medicine, and social welfare, decision makers increasingly have access to algorithmic Risk Assessment Instruments (RAIs). RAIs estimate the risk of an adverse outcome such as recidivism or child neglect, potentially informing high-stakes decisions such as whether to release a defendant on bail or initiate a child welfare investigation. It is important to ensure that RAIs are fair, so that the benefits and harms of such decisions are equitably distributed. The most widely used algorithmic fairness criteria are formulated with respect to observable outcomes, such as whether a person actually recidivates, but these criteria are misleading when applied to RAIs. Since RAIs are intended to inform interventions that can reduce risk, the prediction itself affects the downstream outcome. Recent work has argued that fairness criteria for RAIs should instead utilize potential outcomes, i.e. the outcomes that would occur in the absence of an appropriate intervention. However, no methods currently exist to satisfy such fairness criteria. In this paper, we target one such criterion, counterfactual equalized odds. We develop a post-processed predictor that is estimated via doubly robust estimators, extending and adapting previous post-processing approaches to the counterfactual setting. We also provide doubly robust estimators of the risk and fairness properties of arbitrary fixed post-processed predictors. Our predictor converges to an optimal fair predictor at fast rates. We illustrate properties of our method and show that it performs well on both simulated and real data.