Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

CAST: Time-Varying Treatment Effects with Application to Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Chemotherapy produces a non-monotonic, time-varying survival benefit in head and neck cancer, peaking 50-65 months after treatment.

desk verdict Plausible pattern but overclaimed: CAST's peak-and-decline trajectory is not statistically established, yet the application is worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06367 v1 pith:ZSJ674HS submitted 2025-05-09 cs.LG stat.ML

Everest Yang , Ria Vasishtha , Luqman K. Dad , Lisa A. Kachnic , Andrew Hope , Eric Wang , Xiao Wu , Yading Yuan
show 2 more authors
David J. Brenner Igor Shuryak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML MSC 62N0262P10
keywords time-varyingtreatmenteffectscausalsurvivalforestsanalysiscontinuous-timeinferenceheadandnecksquamouscellcarcinomachemotherapyeffectheterogeneityrestrictedmeantime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces CAST, a causal machine learning framework that converts discrete-horizon treatment effect estimates from causal survival forests into continuous trajectories over follow-up time. Applied to 2,651 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients from the RADCURE dataset, it claims that chemotherapy's survival benefit is non-monotonic: it rises in early follow-up, peaks between 50 and 65 months, and then declines. On held-out test data, chemotherapy increases survival probability by 15.2 ± 6.0 percentage points at 3 years and 15.0 ± 6.7 percentage points at 5 years, with restricted mean survival time gains of 3.6 ± 1.4 and 7.1 ± 2.6 months. The authors argue that the peak timing and curve shape agree across a parametric quadratic fit and a non-parametric spline, so they reflect the underlying effect process rather than smoothing artifacts. If true, CAST gives clinicians and researchers a general way to ask not just whether a treatment works, but when its benefit rises, peaks, and fades.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-varying conditional average treatment effect, $\tau(x,t)=\mathbb{E}[Y(1,t)-Y(0,t)\mid X=x]$, the expected difference in survival outcome at time $t$ under chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy for a patient with covariates $x$. CAST estimates this at horizons of 12 to 120 months using causal survival forests with Nelson-Aalen estimation and doubly robust propensity adjustment, then combines an inverse-variance-weighted quadratic fit, which yields interpretable peak time and half-life parameters, with a cross-validated smoothing spline, which detects inflection points. Propensity score trimming enforces overlap, and dummy-outcome and synthetic-confounder tests are used to check that the trajectory does not arise from noise.

What would settle it

Use a randomized or fully confounder-measured cohort and re-estimate the same trajectory after adding performance status, comorbidity, diet, and genetic risk to the propensity model. If the 3-year and 5-year survival gains shrink toward zero or the peak moves outside the 50-65 month window, the claim that CAST's trajectory reflects the true causal effect is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chemotherapy in HNSCC produces a time-dependent causal survival benefit that is largest in the early-to-mid years after treatment, peaks near 50-65 months, and then gradually declines, and that this trajectory is a property of the data-generating process rather than an artifact of curve fitting. CAST estimates the conditional average treatment effect as a function of time, $\tau(x,t)$, by training causal survival forests separately at ten horizons and then fitting inverse-variance weighted curves through those estimates. The paper reports that both the quadratic and spline versions agree on the timing of the peak, and that the same non-monotonic shape appears in survival probability and restricted mean survival time differences. It further claims that individual-level effect distributions show a long right tail of high responders and a smaller subset with near-zero or negative benefit, with HPV status and smoking pack-years as the main drivers of heterogeneity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, after conditioning on measured covariates, who receives chemotherapy is independent of potential survival outcomes; if unmeasured factors such as performance status, diet, lifestyle, or genetic risk influence both treatment and survival, the estimated benefit trajectory is not identified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clinicians can time surveillance and adjunct therapy around the 50-65 month window where chemotherapy's survival benefit is largest.
  • Fixed-horizon analyses of the same data would give horizon-dependent answers; CAST's continuous trajectory explains why choosing 3-year versus 5-year endpoints changes the apparent benefit.
  • The peak-and-decline shape supports adaptive treatment strategies: after roughly five years, additional chemotherapy is unlikely to add survival benefit and may only add toxicity.
  • If the framework transfers, any censored survival dataset with a binary treatment can be re-analyzed to produce effect trajectories instead of isolated time-point estimates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the trajectory is real, then clinical trials and meta-analyses that report only a single fixed-horizon effect may misstate chemotherapy's value; re-analyzing existing trial data with horizon-specific survival curves would give a direct test of the peak timing.
  • The observed dependence of the peak on tumor repopulation and late toxicity could be tested by applying CAST to datasets with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules: the peak time should shift with biologically effective dose if the mechanism is causal.
  • Because the framework assumes no unmeasured confounding, the heterogeneity findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating; an external cohort with performance status and comorbidity would separate true response heterogeneity from selection-driven noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CAST, a framework for estimating time-varying treatment effects in survival data by fitting a quadratic curve or a smoothing spline to horizon-specific causal survival forest estimates of the survival-probability (SP) and restricted-mean-survival-time (RMST) treatment effects. The method is applied to the RADCURE observational cohort of 2,651 head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma patients to estimate the effect of chemotherapy on survival over 12 to 120 months. The central reported finding is that chemotherapy benefit is non-monotonic, rising to a peak between 50 and 65 months and then declining. The authors also present refutation tests, SHAP-based heterogeneity analyses, propensity-score trimming, and a theoretical appendix claiming consistency and identifiability of the estimators. Source code and data are provided.

Significance. If the trajectory claim were properly established, the paper would make a useful contribution by emphasizing that summary effect measures at single horizons can conceal meaningful temporal dynamics, and by providing a practical workflow for smoothing horizon-specific causal survival forest estimates. The open-source code, the explicit validation suite (dummy-outcome, synthetic-confounder, and negative-control tests), and the application to a real clinical cohort are strengths that make the framework reproducible and testable. However, the manuscript currently does not supply the inferential machinery needed to support the headline rise, peak, decline shape and the 50-65 month peak timing: the analysis is descriptive rather than confirmatory, and the uncertainty of the smoothed trajectory is understated by the independence assumption in the weighting scheme.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Table 2, Figure 2] The headline non-monotonicity is not tested against the uncertainty in the horizon-specific estimates. The apparent peak at 48 months (SP ATE 0.178 with SE 0.072) is not statistically distinguishable from the later-horizon estimates such as 120 months (0.100 with SE 0.063; raw difference 0.078, approximate SE 0.096, not significant at the 5% level). The paper reports no test of non-monotonicity, no confidence interval for t_peak, and no simultaneous confidence band for tau(t). The dummy-outcome refutations validate each horizon-level estimator under the null, but they do not validate the continuous shape. Please add a joint inferential procedure (for example a bootstrap over patients that preserves the cross-horizon correlation, or a multivariate Wald-type test against a monotone alternative) and, if the evidence is insufficient, present the trajectory as a descriptive summary rather than an established feature of the data-generating process.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (2)-(3), Algorithm 1] The weighted least-squares and spline fits use weights w(t)=1/sigma^2(t), which treat the ten horizon-specific ATE estimates as independent. Because all horizons are estimated from the same patients in the held-out test set, the estimates are correlated, and inverse-variance weighting without the covariance terms will understate the uncertainty of the fitted curve, of t_peak, and of the half-life. Please estimate or account for the cross-horizon covariance (e.g., by patient-level bootstrap or by a joint estimating-equation approach) and recompute the summary metrics and their uncertainties.
  3. [Appendix A.2, A.5, Theorem 3] The theoretical guarantees are weaker than the main text suggests. Theorem 1 assumes consistency of the causal survival forests (Assumption A5) rather than establishing the required regularity conditions, and Theorem 3 only proves consistency of the estimated peak time under the assumption that the true trajectory is exactly quadratic with beta_2 less than zero. The appendix does not address model misspecification, does not give a rate of convergence, and does not provide a confidence interval for the peak. Please state clearly which results are imported from the causal survival forest literature, supply the needed conditions, or downgrade the claims to propositions conditional on those imported results.
  4. [Section 6, Appendix B Table 1, Appendix C.4] Unmeasured confounding is a first-order threat to the causal claims, and the sensitivity analysis currently does not quantify it in a way calibrated to the observed data. The authors acknowledge in the Limitations paragraph that diet, lifestyle, and genetic risk are not included, and Appendix B Table 1 shows strong covariate imbalance between treatment groups (mean TNM stage 1.73 in controls versus 3.46 in treated patients; HPV positivity 0.68 versus 0.51). The synthetic-confounder experiments report shifts for correlations r=0.1, 0.3, 0.5, but they do not relate these strengths to the observed imbalance or to the magnitude of confounding that would be needed to explain away the trajectory. Please add a quantified bias analysis (e.g., E-values or a calibrated confounding model) for the main peak-and-decline claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Table 1] The caption reads Summary statistics of the simulated dataset, but the surrounding text describes the observed RADCURE cohort; moreover, the 48-month survival values of 0.0% and 0.1% are inconsistent with the 22.2% of patients still at risk at year 6 stated in Section 6. Please clarify whether this table is observed data or a simulation and correct the apparent inconsistency.
  2. [Section 5, Table 2] The text reports a 5-year SP gain of 15.0 plus or minus 6.7 percentage points, whereas Table 2 lists 0.168 with SE 0.071 at 60 months; please reconcile the numbers.
  3. [Appendix C.3] The text refers to Figures 4 and 5 for the distribution plots, but the panels appear to be Figures 7 and 8; the cross-references need correction.
  4. [Section 5 and Appendix C.2] The main text says younger age and HPV positivity are associated with greater benefit, while the Appendix C.2 Figure 4 caption says Older age is linked to greater chemotherapy benefit; these statements are contradictory and should be aligned.
  5. [Abstract and Section 3] The phrase continuous functions of time following treatment overstates the method: the underlying causal survival forest estimates are still computed at ten discrete horizons, and the continuity comes from the post hoc quadratic or spline fit. Please phrase the contribution precisely to avoid promising fully continuous causal estimation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the continuous trajectory is an explicit smoothing summary of the discrete ATE estimates, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim about the rise, peak, and decline of chemotherapy benefit is obtained by fitting Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) to the ten horizon-specific ATE estimates reported in Table 2. This is not circular because the paper explicitly frames those fits as summaries of the point estimates (Algorithm 1 takes the horizon ATEs and standard errors as inputs), and the raw estimates already show a non-monotonic pattern (SP ATE 0.099 at 12 months, 0.178 at 48 months, 0.100 at 120 months). The peak timing is read off the fitted curve, but no claim is made that the continuous trajectory is independently predicted from the modeling assumptions; it is the defined output of an estimation algorithm. The self-citations to Shuryak et al. are used for BED calculation and radiobiological context, not as a uniqueness theorem or as the source of the causal trajectory. Appendix A.5's peak-time consistency theorem assumes the quadratic form rather than deriving it, which is an unverified model assumption and a robustness concern, but not a circular reduction. The absence of joint inference or simultaneous confidence bands for the trajectory is a statistical correctness issue, not circularity. Therefore no circular step meets the quoted-evidence standard required by the review protocol.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard causal assumptions (unconfoundedness, positivity, non-informative censoring) plus a functional-form choice for the temporal trajectory. The appendix's 'theoretical guarantees' assume forest consistency (A5) rather than establishing it, so the formal burden is largely inherited from the grf literature. The quadratic and spline parameters are fitted to the same data whose pattern they are used to describe, which is why the peak timing is a fitted summary rather than an independent prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • Quadratic coefficients beta_0, beta_1, beta_2 = Not reported in main text; Appendix C.3 promised
    Fitted by weighted least squares (Eq. 2) to the ten horizon ATE estimates; peak time t* = -beta_1/(2 beta_2) and half-life are derived from them.
  • Spline smoothing parameter lambda = Selected via cross-validation (not reported)
    Controls the non-parametric trajectory in Eq. 3; with only 10 points the cross-validated choice is unstable.
  • Propensity score trimming bounds = 0.1 to 0.9 main; sensitivity at 0.01 to 0.10
    Patients outside the range are removed; the number of trimmed patients is not reported, and the estimand shifts to the overlap population.
  • Forest size = 5,000 trees
    Chosen by hand; sensitivity analyses are said to be similar but are not shown.
  • Horizon grid = 12, 24, ..., 120 months
    The discrete set that the continuous curves interpolate; spacing and endpoints affect peak and half-life estimates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Unconfoundedness / no unmeasured confounding (A1)
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.2; the load-bearing premise for the causal reading of the observational RADCURE data.
  • domain assumption Positivity / overlap (A2), enforced by trimming
    Section 3.1; trimming to [0.1, 0.9] assumes the propensity model is correct.
  • standard math Consistency (A3) and non-interference
    Standard SUTVA-style conditions stated in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Non-informative censoring (A4)
    Appendix A.2; with retention dropping from 88.9% to 22.2% across years, informative dropout would bias long-horizon ATEs.
  • domain assumption Consistency of causal survival forests (A5)
    Appendix A.2 lists forest consistency as an assumption; Theorem 1 then inherits it rather than proving it.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic functional form for the parametric trajectory
    Eq. 2 imposes a single-peaked symmetric shape; the spline partly relaxes this, but both are modeling choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CAST: Time-Varying Treatment Effects with Application to Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSJ674HS

@misc{pith2026250506367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CAST: Time-Varying Treatment Effects with Application to Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSJ674HS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06367}
}
read the original abstract

Causal machine learning (CML) enables individualized estimation of treatment effects, offering critical advantages over traditional correlation-based methods. However, existing approaches for medical survival data with censoring such as causal survival forests estimate effects at fixed time points, limiting their ability to capture dynamic changes over time. We introduce Causal Analysis for Survival Trajectories (CAST), a novel framework that models treatment effects as continuous functions of time following treatment. By combining parametric and non-parametric methods, CAST overcomes the limitations of discrete time-point analysis to estimate continuous effect trajectories. Using the RADCURE dataset [1] of 2,651 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) as a clinically relevant example, CAST models how chemotherapy and radiotherapy effects evolve over time at the population and individual levels. By capturing the temporal dynamics of treatment response, CAST reveals how treatment effects rise, peak, and decline over the follow-up period, helping clinicians determine when and for whom treatment benefits are maximized. This framework advances the application of CML to personalized care in HNSCC and other life-threatening medical conditions. Source code/data available at: https://github.com/CAST-FW/HNSCC

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06367 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the CAST framework Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values, we generated interpretable insights into how patient and disease characteristics impact treatment outcomes, allowing for practical application in clinical settings. Significance: This research applies causal survival forests to identify how patient and disease characteristics—like age and HPV status—influence treatment effectiveness. By combining ad… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of time-varying treatment effect models using CAST. The red curve shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlation matrices between covariates, SHAP values, and treatment effects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SHAP analysis of covariates driving treatment effect heterogeneity. (a) Older age is linked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SHAP values for primary tumor site. These anatomical subgroups exhibited low or diffuse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SHAP values for additional covariates, including TNM stage, treatment year, and dose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of estimated RMST-based treatment effects over time. Each panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of estimated survival-probability-based treatment effects over time. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dummy outcome test for RMST-based ATE estimates. Across 20 shuffles per horizon, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dummy outcome test for survival probability-based ATE estimates. The model correctly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute ATE differences in RMST under varying confounder strengths ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Absolute ATE differences in SP under varying confounder strengths ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. L. Welch, S. Kim, A. Hope, S. H. Huang, Z. Lu, J. Marsilla, M. Kazmierski, K. Rey- McIntyre, T. Patel, B. O’Sullivan, J. Waldron, J. Kwan, J. Su, L. Soltan Ghoraie, H. B. Chan, K. Yip, M. Giuliani, Neck Site Group Princess Margaret Head, S. Bratman, and T. Tadic. Computed tomography images from large head and neck cohort (radcure) (version 4). The Canc...

    doi:10.7937/j47w-nm11 2023

  2. [2]

    M. Hung, J. Bounsanga, and M. W. V oss. Interpretation of correlations in clinical research. Postgraduate Medicine, 129(8):902–906, November 2017. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2017. 1383820

    work page arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    H. A. Miot. Correlation analysis in clinical and experimental studies.Jornal Vascular Brasileiro, 17(4):275–279, December 2018. doi: 10.1590/1677-5449.174118

    work page arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Shiba and K

    K. Shiba and K. Inoue. Harnessing causal forests for epidemiologic research: key considerations. American Journal of Epidemiology, 193(6):813–818, June 2024. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwae003

    work page doi:10.1093/aje/kwae003 2024

  5. [5]

    Venkatasubramaniam, B

    A. Venkatasubramaniam, B. A. Mateen, B. M. Shields, A. T. Hattersley, A. G. Jones, S. J. V ollmer, and J. M. Dennis. Comparison of causal forest and regression-based approaches to evaluate treatment effect heterogeneity: an application for type 2 diabetes precision medicine. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making , 23(1):110, June 2023. doi: 10.1186/...

    work page doi:10.1186/s12911-023-02207-2 2023

  6. [6]

    Solana-Lavalle, M

    G. Solana-Lavalle, M. D. Cusimano, T. Steeves, R. Rosas-Romero, and P. N. Tyrrell. Causal forest machine learning analysis of parkinson’s disease in resting-state functional magnetic res- onance imaging. Tomography, 10(6):894–911, June 2024. doi: 10.3390/tomography10060068

    work page doi:10.3390/tomography10060068 2024

  7. [7]

    Kosorok, Erik Sverdrup, Stefan Wager, and Ruoqing Zhu

    Yifan Cui, Michael R. Kosorok, Erik Sverdrup, Stefan Wager, and Ruoqing Zhu. Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with right-censored data via causal survival forests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 85(2):380–403, 2023. doi: 10.1093/jrsssb/qkac020

    work page doi:10.1093/jrsssb/qkac020 2023

  8. [8]

    V oinot, C

    C. V oinot, C. Berenfeld, I. Mayer, B. Sebastien, and J. Josse. Causal survival analysis, estimation of the average treatment effect (ate): Practical recommendations. arXiv preprint, January 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05836

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05836 2025

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Meng and I

    X. Meng and I. Bojinov. Time-varying causal survival learning. arXiv preprint, March 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00730

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Shuryak, E

    I. Shuryak, E. Wang, and D. J. Brenner. Understanding the impact of radiotherapy fractionation on overall survival in a large head and neck squamous cell carcinoma dataset: A comprehensive approach combining mechanistic and machine learning models. Frontiers in Oncology, 14: 1...

    2024

  3. [11]

    L. Hu, J. Ji, H. Joshi, E. R. Scott, and F. Li. Estimating the causal effects of multiple intermittent treatments with application to covid-19. Statistics in Medicine, 42(3):345–362, January 2023. doi: 10.1002/sim.9425

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    S. Miller. Causal forest estimation of heterogeneous and time-varying environmental policy effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 103:102337, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102337

    2020

  5. [13]

    Huang, N

    Z. Huang, N. A. Mayr, M. Gao, S. S. Lo, J. Z. Wang, G. Jia, and W. T. C. Yuh. The onset time of tumor repopulation for cervical cancer: first evidence from clinical data. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 84(2):478–484, October 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.i...

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Petersen and F

    C. Petersen and F. Würschmidt. Late toxicity of radiotherapy: a problem or a challenge for the radiation oncologist? Breast Care (Basel), 6(5):369–374, October 2011. doi: 10.1159/ 000334220

    2011

  7. [15]

    Shuryak, E

    I. Shuryak, E. J. Hall, and D. J. Brenner. Dose dependence of accelerated repopulation in head and neck cancer: Supporting evidence and clinical implications. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 127(1):20–26, April 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.02.015. 11

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    D. E. Johnson, B. Burtness, C. R. Leemans, V . W. Y . Lui, J. E. Bauman, and J. R. Grandis. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6(92):1–22, November

  9. [17]

    Barsouk, J

    A. Barsouk, J. S. Aluru, P. Rawla, K. Saginala, and A. Barsouk. Epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Medical Sciences, 11(2):42, June 2023. doi: 10.3390/medsci11020042

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M. E. Sabatini and S. Chiocca. Human papillomavirus as a driver of head and neck cancers. British Journal of Cancer, 122(3):306–314, February 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41416-019-0602-7

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    D. C. Beachler and G. D’Souza. Nuances in the changing epidemiology of head and neck cancer. Oncology (Williston Park), 24(10):924–926, September 2010. PMID: 21138173

    2010

  12. [20]

    G. M. P. van Kempen, R. J. Baatenburg de Jong, and R. J. H. Borra. Hpv and head and neck cancers: Towards early diagnosis and prevention. Oral Oncology, 128:105214, September 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.105214

    2022

  13. [21]

    Mackeprang, K

    P.-H. Mackeprang, K. Bryjova, A. E. Heusel, D. Henzen, M. Scricciolo, and O. Elicin. Consid- eration of image guidance in patterns of failure analyses of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Radiation Oncology, 19(1):30, March 2024. d...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    C. Kut, H. Quon, and X. S. Chen. Emerging radiotherapy technologies for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: challenges and opportunities in the era of immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel), 16(24):4150, December 2024. doi: 10.3390/cancers16244150

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    S. R. Rathod, S. Gupta, S. Ghosh-Laskar, V . Murthy, A. Budrukkar, J. Agarwal, and K. Kannan. Quality-of-life (qol) outcomes in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (imrt) compared to three-dimensional conformal...

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Viganò, F

    A. Viganò, F. De Felice, N. A. Iacovelli, D. Alterio, R. Ingargiola, A. Casbarra, N. Facchinetti, O. Oneta, A. Bacigalupo, E. Tornari, S. Ursino, F. Paiar, O. Caspiani, A. Di Rito, D. Musio, P. Bossi, P. Steca, B. A. Jereczek-Fossa, L. Caso, N. Palena, A. Greco, and E. Orlandi...

    2023

  17. [25]

    R. Yang, A. C. Freeman-Cook, H. C. Kurnik, and D. C. Kirouac. Dissecting variability in responses to cancer chemotherapy through systems pharmacology. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 88(1):34–38, July 2010. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.96

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    How long does it take chemotherapy to shrink tumors? Cancerwise, MD Ander- son Cancer Center , 2024

    Janet Tu. How long does it take chemotherapy to shrink tumors? Cancerwise, MD Ander- son Cancer Center , 2024. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/how-long-does-it-take- chemotherapy-to-shrink-tumors.h00-159696756.html

    2024

  19. [27]

    Coping with chemotherapy

    UCSF Health. Coping with chemotherapy. Patient Education, UCSF Health , 2025. https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/coping-with-chemotherapy

    2025

  20. [28]

    Y . Sun, Z. Wang, S. Qiu, and R. Wang. Therapeutic strategies of different hpv status in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 17(4):1104–1118, March 2021. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.58077

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    K. K. Ang, J. Harris, R. Wheeler, R. Weber, D. I. Rosenthal, P. M. Nguyen-Tan, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(1):24–35, July 2010. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912217

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    Y . Wu, Y . Wang, J. Liu, Y . Wang, Y . Li, Y . Hu, H. Qiu, Z. Liang, Y . Wei, and H. Zhong. Hpv- positive status is a favorable prognostic factor in non-nasopharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients: a population-based study. Frontiers in Oncology, 11:765, Oct...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Jiang, Y

    N. Jiang, Y . Wu, and C. Li. Limitations of using cox proportional hazards model in car- diovascular research. Cardiovascular Diabetology, 23(219), June 2024. doi: 10.1186/ s12933-024-02302-2

    2024

  24. [32]

    L. Xu, S. Jiang, T. Li, and Y . Xu. Limitations of the cox proportional hazards model and alternative approaches in metachronous recurrence research. Gastric Cancer, 27(6):1348–1349, November 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10120-024-01554-x

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    S. Saha. Survival analysis with bayesian additive regression trees and its application. https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/allgraduate-thesesdissertations/5158/, 2017. Northern Illi- nois University Thesis

    2017

  26. [34]

    F. Zhai, S. Mu, Y . Song, M. Zhang, C. Zhang, and Z. Lv. A random survival forest model for predicting residual and recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in premenopausal women. International Journal of Women’s Health, 16:1775–1787, October 2024. doi: 10.2147...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Matsuo, S

    K. Matsuo, S. Purushotham, B. Jiang, R. S. Mandelbaum, T. Takiuchi, Y . Liu, and L. D. Roman. Survival outcome prediction in cervical cancer: Cox models vs deep-learning model. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology , 220(4):381.e1–381.e14, April 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.aj...

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Zhang, N

    Y . Zhang, N. Kreif, V . S. Gc, and A. Manca. Machine learning methods to estimate individual- ized treatment effects for use in health technology assessment. Medical Decision Making, 44 (7):756–769, October 2024. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241263356

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Chernozhukov, C

    V . Chernozhukov, C. Hansen, N. Kallus, M. Spindler, and V . Syrgkanis. Applied causal inference powered by ml and ai. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2403.02467, March 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2403.02467

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. R. Künzel, J. S. Sekhon, P. J. Bickel, and B. Yu. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(10):4156–4165, 2019. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804597116

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    L. Wen, J. G. Young, J. M. Robins, and M. A. Hernán. Parametric g-formula implementations for causal survival analyses. Biometrics, 77(2):740–753, June 2021. doi: 10.1111/biom.13321

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    D. Lee, S. Yang, and X. Wang. Doubly robust estimators for generalizing treatment effects on survival outcomes from randomized controlled trials to a target population. Journal of Causal Inference, 10(1):415–440, December 2022. doi: 10.1515/jci-2022-0004

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Treatment heterogeneity with right-censored outcomes using grf

    Erik Sverdrup and Stefan Wager. Treatment heterogeneity with right-censored outcomes using grf. ASA Lifetime Data Science Newsletter, 2024. arXiv:2312.02482

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sun and F

    J. Sun and F. W. Crawford. The role of discretization scales in causal inference with continuous- time treatment. arXiv preprint, June 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.08840

    2023 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Curth, C

    A. Curth, C. Lee, and M. W. van der Laan. Survite: Learning heterogeneous treatment effects from time-to-event data. arXiv preprint, October 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.14001

    2021 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    W. J. Allard and L. W. M. M. Terstappen. Ccr 20th anniversary commentary: Paving the way for circulating tumor cells. Clinical Cancer Research, 21(13):2883–2885, July 2015. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2559

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    J. A. Langendijk, P. Doornaert, I. M. Verdonck de Leeuw, C. R. Leemans, N. K. Aaronson, and B. J. Slotman. Impact of late treatment-related toxicity on quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(22): 377...

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    A. F. Brouwer, R. Meza, M. C. Eisenberg, C. H. Chapman, M. C. He, S. B. Chinn, A. M. Mondul, M. Banerjee, M. Ryser, and J. M. Taylor. Time-varying survival effects for squamous cell carcinomas at oropharyngeal and nonoropharyngeal head and neck sites in the united states, 1973...

    1973 doi

  39. [47]

    E. K. Roberts, L. Luo, A. M. Mondul, M. Banerjee, C. M. Veenstra, A. B. Mariotto, M. J. Schipper, K. He, J. M. G. Taylor, and A. F. Brouwer. Time-varying associations of patient and tumor characteristics with cancer survival: an analysis of seer data across 14 cancer sites, 20...

    2004

  40. [48]

    Chernozhukov, D

    V . Chernozhukov, D. Chetverikov, M. Demirer, E. Duflo, C. Hansen, W. Newey, and J. Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econometrics Journal, 21(1):C1–C68, January 2018. doi: 10.1093/ectj/uty017

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Wager and S

    S. Wager and S. Athey. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523):1228–1242, July

  42. [50]

    Athey, J

    S. Athey, J. Tibshirani, and S. Wager. Generalized random forests. Annals of Statistics, 47(2): 1148–1178, April 2019. doi: 10.1214/18-AOS1709

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Shuryak, E

    I. Shuryak, E. J. Hall, and D. J. Brenner. Optimized hypofractionation can markedly improve tumor control and decrease late effects for head and neck cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 104(2):272–278, June 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019. 0...

    2019 doi

  44. [2018]

    doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839

    2017

  45. [2020]

    doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-00224-3

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.