What Doctors Get Wrong About Hidden Bias in Treatment Effects

Author(s): Vikram Lingam

Originally published on Towards AI.

Why the typical approach to analyzing medical data often leads to incorrect conclusions regarding what really works for patients

Did you know that in a major oncology trial, doctors hailed a drug as a game, changer because its Sources of Bias showed a 30% reduction in death risk? But when you dig deeper, that same drug barely extended average survival by a couple of months for most patients. It’s a stark reminder of how medical data can trick even sharp experts into overhyping treatments. We’re talking about survival analysis here, the go, to method for time, to, event data in clinical trials, where things like cancer relapses or heart events get tracked over time. Yet, this approach often misses the mark on real patient benefits because it ignores key wrinkles in the numbers.

The article discusses the pitfalls of analyzing medical data, highlighting how biases in treatment effects can mislead interpretations of clinical trials. It emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of metrics like hazard ratios and introduces concepts like restricted mean survival time to better reflect patient outcomes. Additionally, the article points out common issues in non-randomized studies, such as hidden biases and the dangers of oversimplifying complex data. The conclusions emphasize the importance of incorporating more accurate modeling and sensitivity analyses to ensure that treatment effects reflect real-world benefits for patients.

Read the full blog for free on Medium.

Join thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor.

Published via Towards AI