Raphaël Porcher

Identifying patients who benefit from a treatment is a key aspect of personalized medicine, which allows the development of individualized treatment rules (ITRs). Many machine learning methods have been proposed to create such rules. However, to what extent the methods lead to similar ITRs, that is, recommending the same treatment for the same individuals is unclear. In this work, we compared 22 of the most common approaches in two randomized control trials. Two classes of methods can be distinguished. The first class of methods relies on predicting individualized treatment effects from which an ITR is derived by recommending the treatment evaluated to the individuals with a predicted benefit. In the second class, methods directly estimate the ITR without estimating individualized treatment effects. For each trial, the performance of ITRs was assessed by various metrics, and the pairwise agreement between all ITRs was also calculated. Results showed that the ITRs obtained via the different methods generally had considerable disagreements regarding the patients to be treated. A better concordance was found among akin methods. Overall, when evaluating the performance of ITRs in a validation sample, all methods produced ITRs with limited performance, suggesting a high potential for optimism. For non‐parametric methods, this optimism was likely due to overfitting. The different methods do not lead to similar ITRs and are therefore not interchangeable. The choice of the method strongly influences for which patients a certain treatment is recommended, drawing some concerns about their practical use.

The widespread lockdowns imposed in many countries at the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic elevated the importance of research on pandemic management when medical solutions such as vaccines are unavailable. We present a framework that combines a standard epidemiological SEIR (susceptible–exposed–infected–removed) model with an equally standard machine learning classification model for clinical severity risk, defined as an individual's risk of needing intensive care unit (ICU) treatment if infected. Using COVID‐19–related data and estimates for France as of spring 2020, we then simulate isolation and exit policies. Our simulations show that policies considering clinical risk predictions could relax isolation restrictions for millions of the lowest risk population months earlier while consistently abiding by ICU capacity restrictions. Exit policies without risk predictions, meanwhile, would considerably exceed ICU capacity or require the isolation of a substantial portion of population for over a year in order to not overwhelm the medical system. Sensitivity analyses further decompose the impact of various elements of our models on the observed effects. Our work indicates that predictive modeling based on machine learning and artificial intelligence could bring significant value to managing pandemics. Such a strategy, however, requires governments to develop policies and invest in infrastructure to operationalize personalized isolation and exit policies based on risk predictions at scale. This includes health data policies to train predictive models and apply them to all residents, as well as policies for targeted resource allocation to maintain strict isolation for high‐risk individuals.