BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Peter R. Rijnbeek

Peter R. Rijnbeek contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningMethodologyArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A standardized framework for risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in observational healthcare databases

The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in the RCT setting. The aim of this study was to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five steps: 1) definition of the research aim, i.e., the population, the treatment, the comparator and the outcome(s) of interest; 2) identification of relevant databases; 3) development of a prediction model for the outcome(s) of interest; 4) estimation of relative and absolute treatment effect within strata of predicted risk, after adjusting for observed confounding; 5) presentation of the results. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating heterogeneity of the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus beta blockers on three efficacy and six safety outcomes across three observational databases. The proposed framework can supplement any comparative effectiveness study. We provide a publicly available R software package for applying this framework to any database mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. In our demonstration, patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction received negligible absolute benefits for all three efficacy outcomes, though they were more pronounced in the highest risk quarter, especially for hospitalization with heart failure. However, failing diagnostics showed evidence of residual imbalances even after adjustment for observed confounding. Our framework allows for the evaluation of differential treatment effects across risk strata, which offers the opportunity to consider the benefit-harm trade-off between alternative treatments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Individualized treatment effect was predicted best by modeling baseline risk in interaction with treatment assignment

Objective: To compare different risk-based methods for optimal prediction of treatment effects. Methods: We simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk (PI), the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the PI). We predicted absolute benefit using: models with a constant relative treatment effect; stratification in quarters of the PI; models including a linear interaction of treatment with the PI; models including an interaction of treatment with a restricted cubic spline (RCS) transformation of the PI; an adaptive approach using Akaike's Information Criterion. We evaluated predictive performance using root mean squared error and measures of discrimination and calibration for benefit. Results: The linear-interaction model displayed optimal or close-to-optimal performance across many simulation scenarios with moderate sample size (N=4,250 patients; ~ 785 events). The RCS-model was optimal for strong non-linear deviations from a constant treatment effect, particularly when sample size was larger (N=17,000). The adaptive approach also required larger sample sizes. These findings were illustrated in the GUSTO-I trial. Conclusion: An interaction between baseline risk and treatment assignment should be considered to improve treatment effect predictions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: a comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies

Artificial intelligence (AI) has huge potential to improve the health and well-being of people, but adoption in clinical practice is still limited. Lack of transparency is identified as one of the main barriers to implementation, as clinicians should be confident the AI system can be trusted. Explainable AI has the potential to overcome this issue and can be a step towards trustworthy AI. In this paper we review the recent literature to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners on the design of explainable AI systems for the health-care domain and contribute to formalization of the field of explainable AI. We argue the reason to demand explainability determines what should be explained as this determines the relative importance of the properties of explainability (i.e. interpretability and fidelity). Based on this, we propose a framework to guide the choice between classes of explainable AI methods (explainable modelling versus post-hoc explanation; model-based, attribution-based, or example-based explanations; global and local explanations). Furthermore, we find that quantitative evaluation metrics, which are important for objective standardized evaluation, are still lacking for some properties (e.g. clarity) and types of explanations (e.g. example-based methods). We conclude that explainable modelling can contribute to trustworthy AI, but the benefits of explainability still need to be proven in practice and complementary measures might be needed to create trustworthy AI in health care (e.g. reporting data quality, performing extensive (external) validation, and regulation).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access