Journal of Clinical and Translational Science (Apr 2024)

318 Discovering Subgroups with Supervised Machine Learning Models for Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect Analysis

  • Edward Xu,
  • Joseph Vanghelof,
  • Daniela Raicu,
  • Jacob Furst,
  • Raj Shah,
  • Roselyne Tchoua

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.288
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8
pp. 97 – 98

Abstract

Read online

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of the study is to provide insights into the use of machine learning methods as a means to predict heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) in participants of randomized clinical trials. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using data from 2,441 participants enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) randomized controlled trial of daily low-dose aspirin vs placebo in the United States, we developed multivariable risk prediction models for the composite outcome of dementia, disability, or death. We used two machine learning techniques, decision trees and random forests, to develop novel non-parametric outcomes classifiers and generate risk-based subgroups. The comparator method was an extant semi-parametric proportional hazards predictive risk model. We then assessed HTE by examining the 5-year absolute risk reduction (ARR) of aspirin vs placebo in each risk subgroup. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In the random forest classifier, the ARR at 5 years in the highest risk quintile was 13.7% (95% CI 3.1% to 24.4%). For the semi-parametric proportional hazards model, the ARR in the highest risk quintile was 15.1% (95% CI 4.0% to 26.3%). These results were comparable and provide evidence of the viability of internally developed parsimonious non-parametric machine learning models for HTE analysis. The decision tree model results (5-year ARR = 17.0%, 95% CI= -5.4% to 39.4% in the highest risk subgroup) exhibited more uncertainty in the results. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: None of the models detected significant HTE on the relative scale; there was substantial HTE on the absolute scale in three of the models. Treatment benefit on the absolute scale may be regarded as bearing greater clinical importance and may be present even in the absence of benefit on the relative scale.