Empirical Analysis of Model Selection for Heterogeneous Causal Effect Estimation

We study the problem of model selection in causal inference, specifically for the case of conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation under binary treatments. Unlike model selection in machine learning, there is no perfect analogue of cross-validation as we do not observe the counterfactual potential outcome for any data point. Towards this, there have been a variety of proxy metrics proposed in the literature, that depend on auxiliary nuisance models estimated from the observed data (propensity score model, outcome regression model). However, the effectiveness of these metrics has only been studied on synthetic datasets as we can access the counterfactual data for them. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis to judge the performance of these metrics introduced in the literature, and novel ones introduced in this work, where we utilize the latest advances in generative modeling to incorporate multiple realistic datasets. Our analysis suggests novel model selection strategies based on careful hyperparameter tuning of CATE estimators and causal ensembling.Comment: Preprint. Under Revie

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: a randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). SIC-8000 (Eleview, Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available FDA approved solution but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 to hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. Methods This was a single-center double-blinded randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney Resection Quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. Results There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (84 SIC-8000 and 75 hetastarch) and 57 serrated lesions (30 SIC-8000 and 27 hetastarch). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, p=0.001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, p=0.038) Conclusions SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small

AmBisome Monotherapy and Combination AmBisome-Miltefosine Therapy for the Treatment of Visceral Leishmaniasis in Patients Coinfected With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in India: A Randomized Open-Label, Parallel-Arm, Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) presents an increasingly important patient cohort in areas where both infections are endemic. Evidence for treatment is sparce, with no high-quality studies from the Indian subcontinent. METHODS: This is a randomized, open-label, parallel-arm, phase 3 trial conducted within a single hospital in Patna, India. One hundred and fifty patients aged ≥18 years with serologically confirmed HIV and parasitologically confirmed VL were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment arms, either a total 40 mg/kg intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome; Gilead Pharmaceuticals) administered in 8 equal doses over 24 days or a total 30 mg/kg intravenous AmBisome administered in 6 equal doses given concomitantly with a total 1.4 g oral miltefosine administered through 2 daily doses of 50 mg over 14 days. The primary outcome was intention-to-treat relapse-free survival at day 210, defined as absence of signs and symptoms of VL or, if symptomatic, negative parasitological investigations. RESULTS: Among 243 patients assessed for eligibility, 150 were recruited between 2 January 2017 and 5 April 2018, with no loss to follow-up. Relapse-free survival at day 210 was 85% (64/75; 95% CI, 77-100%) in the monotherapy arm, and 96%, (72/75; 90-100%) in the combination arm. Nineteen percent (28/150) were infected with concurrent tuberculosis, divided equally between arms. Excluding those with concurrent tuberculosis, relapse-free survival at day 210 was 90% (55/61; 82-100%) in the monotherapy and 97% (59/61; 91-100%) in the combination therapy arm. Serious adverse events were uncommon and similar in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy appears to be safe, well tolerated, and effective, and halves treatment duration of current recommendations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry India (CTRI/2015/05/005807; the protocol is available online at https://osf.io/avz7r)