Search

Medical data often exhibits long-tail distributions with heavy class imbalance, which naturally leads to difficulty in classifying the minority classes (i.e., boundary regions or rare objects). Recent work has significantly improved semi-supervised medical image segmentation in long-tailed scenarios by equipping them with unsupervised contrastive criteria. However, it remains unclear how well they will perform in the labeled portion of data where class distribution is also highly imbalanced. In this work, we present ACTION++, an improved contrastive learning framework with adaptive anatomical contrast for semi-supervised medical segmentation. Specifically, we propose an adaptive supervised contrastive loss, where we first compute the optimal locations of class centers uniformly distributed on the embedding space (i.e., off-line), and then perform online contrastive matching training by encouraging different class features to adaptively match these distinct and uniformly distributed class centers. Moreover, we argue that blindly adopting a constant temperature $\tau$ in the contrastive loss on long-tailed medical data is not optimal, and propose to use a dynamic $\tau$ via a simple cosine schedule to yield better separation between majority and minority classes. Empirically, we evaluate ACTION++ on ACDC and LA benchmarks and show that it achieves state-of-the-art across two semi-supervised settings. Theoretically, we analyze the performance of adaptive anatomical contrast and confirm its superiority in label efficiency., Comment: Accepted by International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI 2023)

Regression trees and their ensemble methods are popular methods for nonparametric regression: they combine strong predictive performance with interpretable estimators. To improve their utility for locally smooth response surfaces, we study regression trees and random forests with linear aggregation functions. We introduce a new algorithm that finds the best axis-aligned split to fit linear aggregation functions on the corresponding nodes, and we offer a quasilinear time implementation. We demonstrate the algorithm's favorable performance on real-world benchmarks and in an extensive simulation study, and we demonstrate its improved interpretability using a large get-out-the-vote experiment. We provide an open-source software package that implements several tree-based estimators with linear aggregation functions.

As the size $n$ of datasets become massive, many commonly-used clustering algorithms (for example, $k$-means or hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC) require prohibitive computational cost and memory. In this paper, we propose a solution to these clustering problems by extending threshold clustering (TC) to problems of instance selection. TC is a recently developed clustering algorithm designed to partition data into many small clusters in linearithmic time (on average). Our proposed clustering method is as follows. First, TC is performed and clusters are reduced into single "prototype" points. Then, TC is applied repeatedly on these prototype points until sufficient data reduction has been obtained. Finally, a more sophisticated clustering algorithm is applied to the reduced prototype points, thereby obtaining a clustering on all $n$ data points. This entire procedure for clustering is called iterative hybridized threshold clustering (IHTC). Through simulation results and by applying our methodology on several real datasets, we show that IHTC combined with $k$-means or HAC substantially reduces the run time and memory usage of the original clustering algorithms while still preserving their performance. Additionally, IHTC helps prevent singular data points from being overfit by clustering algorithms.

We develop new algorithms for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects, combining recent developments in transfer learning for neural networks with insights from the causal inference literature. By taking advantage of transfer learning, we are able to efficiently use different data sources that are related to the same underlying causal mechanisms. We compare our algorithms with those in the extant literature using extensive simulation studies based on large-scale voter persuasion experiments and the MNIST database. Our methods can perform an order of magnitude better than existing benchmarks while using a fraction of the data.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects has become increasingly important in many fields and life and death decisions are now based on these estimates: for example, selecting a personalized course of medical treatment. Recently, a variety of procedures relying on different assumptions have been suggested for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects. Unfortunately, there are no compelling approaches that allow identification of the procedure that has assumptions that hew closest to the process generating the data set under study and researchers often select one arbitrarily. This approach risks making inferences that rely on incorrect assumptions and gives the experimenter too much scope for $p$-hacking. A single estimator will also tend to overlook patterns other estimators could have picked up. We believe that the conclusion of many published papers might change had a different estimator been chosen and we suggest that practitioners should evaluate many estimators and assess their similarity when investigating heterogeneous treatment effects. We demonstrate this by applying 28 different estimation procedures to an emulated observational data set; this analysis shows that different estimation procedures may give starkly different estimates. We also provide an extensible \texttt{R} package which makes it straightforward for practitioners to follow our recommendations.

Matching is an important tool in causal inference. The method provides a conceptually straightforward way to make groups of units comparable on observed characteristics. The use of the method is, however, limited to situations where the study design is fairly simple and the sample is moderately sized. We illustrate the issue by revisiting a large-scale voter mobilization experiment that took place in Michigan for the 2006 election. We ask what the causal effects would have been if the treatments in the experiment were scaled up to the full population. Matching could help us answer this question, but no existing matching method can accommodate the six treatment arms and the 6,762,701 observations involved in the study. To offer a solution this and similar empirical problems, we introduce a generalization of the full matching method and an associated algorithm. The method can be used with any number of treatment conditions, and it is shown to produce near-optimal matchings. The worst case maximum within-group dissimilarity is no worse than four times the optimal solution, and simulation results indicate that its performance is considerably closer to the optimal solution on average. Despite its performance, the algorithm is fast and uses little memory. It terminates, on average, in linearithmic time using linear space. This enables investigators to construct well-performing matchings within minutes even in complex studies with samples of several million units.

We derive the variances of estimators for sample average treatment effects under the Neyman-Rubin potential outcomes model for arbitrary blocking assignments and an arbitrary number of treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of the three most commonly chosen types of prosthesis for total hip replacement. DESIGN: Lifetime cost effectiveness model with parameters estimated from individual patient data obtained from three large national databases. SETTING: English National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 55 to 84 undergoing primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: Total hip replacement using either cemented, cementless, or hybrid prostheses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost (£), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L, where 0 represents death and 1 perfect health), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and the probability that each prosthesis type is the most cost effective at alternative thresholds of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. RESULTS: Lifetime costs were generally lowest with cemented prostheses, and postoperative quality of life and lifetime QALYs were highest with hybrid prostheses. For example, in women aged 70 mean costs were £6900 ($11 000; €8200) for cemented prostheses, £7800 for cementless prostheses, and £7500 for hybrid prostheses; mean postoperative EQ-5D scores were 0.78, 0.80, and 0.81, and the corresponding lifetime QALYs were 9.0, 9.2, and 9.3 years. The incremental cost per QALY for hybrid compared with cemented prostheses was £2500. If the threshold willingness to pay for a QALY gain exceeded £10 000, the probability that hybrid prostheses were most cost effective was about 70%. Hybrid prostheses have the highest probability of being the most cost effective in all subgroups, except in women aged 80, where cemented prostheses were most cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented prostheses were the least costly type for total hip replacement, but for most patient groups hybrid prostheses were the most cost effective. Cementless prostheses did not provide sufficient improvement in health outcomes to justify their additional costs.