# Quick Start Guide: Optimal Policy Trees with Survival Outcomes

In this guide we will give a demonstration of how to use Optimal Policy Trees with survival outcomes. For this example, we will use the AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 175 dataset, which was a randomized clinical trial examining the effects of four treatments on the survival of patients with HIV.

*Note: this case is not intended to serve as a practical application of policy trees, but rather to serve as an illustration of the training and evaluation process.*

First we load in the data:

```
using CSV, DataFrames
df = CSV.read("ACTG175.txt", DataFrame)
```

```
2139×27 DataFrame
Row │ pidnum age wtkg hemo homo drugs karnof oprior z30 z ⋯
│ Int64 Int64 Float64 Int64 Int64 Int64 Int64 Int64 Int64 I ⋯
──────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1 │ 10056 48 89.8128 0 0 0 100 0 0 ⋯
2 │ 10059 61 49.4424 0 0 0 90 0 1
3 │ 10089 45 88.452 0 1 1 90 0 1
4 │ 10093 47 85.2768 0 1 0 100 0 1
5 │ 10124 43 66.6792 0 1 0 100 0 1 ⋯
6 │ 10140 46 88.9056 0 1 1 100 0 1
7 │ 10165 31 73.0296 0 1 0 100 0 1
8 │ 10190 41 66.2256 0 1 1 100 0 1
⋮ │ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱
2133 │ 990018 27 80.2872 1 0 0 70 0 1 ⋯
2134 │ 990019 39 64.8648 1 0 0 90 0 1
2135 │ 990021 21 53.298 1 0 0 100 0 1
2136 │ 990026 17 102.967 1 0 0 100 0 1
2137 │ 990030 53 69.8544 1 1 0 90 0 1 ⋯
2138 │ 990071 14 60.0 1 0 0 100 0 0
2139 │ 990077 45 77.3 1 0 0 100 0 0
18 columns and 2124 rows omitted
```

Policy trees are trained using a features matrix/dataframe `X`

as usual and a rewards matrix that has one column for each potential treatment that contains the outcome for each sample under that treatment.

There are two ways to get this rewards matrix:

- in rare cases, the problem may have full information about the outcome associated with each treatment for each sample
- more commonly, we have observational data, and use this partial data to train models to estimate the outcome associated with each treatment

Refer to the documentation on data preparation for more information on the data format.

In this case, the dataset is observational, and so we will use RewardEstimation to estimate our rewards matrix.

## Reward Estimation

First, we separate the dataset into the various pieces:

- the features (
`X`

) - the treatments observed in the data (
`treatments`

) - whether the patient was known to have died (
`died`

) - the time of last contact with the patient (
`times`

) - this is the survival time for patients that died, and a lower bound on the survival time otherwise

```
X = select(df, [:age, :wtkg, :karnof, :cd40, :cd420, :cd80, :cd820, :gender,
:homo, :race, :symptom, :drugs, :hemo, :str2])
treatment_map = Dict(
0 => "zidovudine",
1 => "zidovudine and didanosine",
2 => "zidovudine and zalcitabine",
3 => "didanosine"
)
treatments = map(t -> treatment_map[t], df.arms)
died = Bool.(df.cens)
times = df.days
```

Next, we split into training and testing:

```
(train_X, train_treatments, train_died, train_times), (test_X, test_treatments, test_died, test_times) =
IAI.split_data(:prescription_maximize, X, treatments, died, times, seed=2345, train_proportion=0.5)
```

Note that we have used a training/test split of 50%/50%, so that we save more data for testing to ensure high-quality reward estimation on the test set.

The treatment is a categoric variable with four choices, so we follow the process for estimating rewards with categorical treatments.

Our outcome is the survival time of the patient, so we use a `CategoricalSurvivalRewardEstimator`

to estimate the expected survival under each treatment option with a doubly-robust reward estimation method, using random forests to estimate both propensity scores and outcomes:

```
reward_lnr = IAI.CategoricalSurvivalRewardEstimator(
propensity_estimator=IAI.RandomForestClassifier(),
outcome_estimator=IAI.RandomForestSurvivalLearner(),
reward_estimator=:doubly_robust,
random_seed=1,
)
train_rewards, train_reward_score = IAI.fit_predict!(
reward_lnr, train_X, train_treatments, train_died, train_times,
propensity_score_criterion=:misclassification,
outcome_score_criterion=:harrell_c_statistic)
train_rewards
```

```
1069×4 DataFrame
Row │ didanosine zidovudine zidovudine and didanosine zidovudine and zalc ⋯
│ Float64 Float64 Float64 Float64 ⋯
──────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1 │ 914.745 880.674 1041.04 ⋯
2 │ 1705.35 803.276 1047.7
3 │ 1079.14 1003.64 1082.81 1
4 │ 986.44 380.173 937.683 1
5 │ -2805.69 526.312 837.364 ⋯
6 │ 752.111 -748.213 836.173
7 │ 1204.91 1143.15 1091.91
8 │ 881.712 446.223 887.084 -1
⋮ │ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱
1063 │ 1196.44 1147.62 1187.29 1 ⋯
1064 │ 1194.02 1102.16 1370.71 1
1065 │ 1337.76 805.064 956.125
1066 │ 1067.24 1139.94 1193.82
1067 │ 971.123 1131.22 1036.43 1 ⋯
1068 │ 947.833 -479.767 887.853 1
1069 │ 1446.01 1044.59 1197.51 1
1 column and 1054 rows omitted
```

`train_reward_score`

```
Dict{Symbol, Any} with 2 entries:
:propensity => 0.269403
:outcome => Dict("zidovudine and zalcitabine"=>0.687999, "zidovudine"=>0.7…
```

We can see that the internal outcome estimation models have c-statistics around 0.7, which gives us confidence that the survival time estimates are of decent quality, and good to base our training on. The accuracy of the propensity model is around the same as random guessing at 25%, which is to be expected as the underlying data comes from a randomized trial. Given this, we may not expect the doubly-robust estimation method to perform significantly differently to the direct method, as there is not likely to be much treatment assignment bias to correct for.

## Optimal Policy Trees

Now that we have a complete rewards matrix, we can train a tree to learn an optimal prescription policy that maximizes survival time. Note that we exclude two features from our prescription policy (`:cd420`

and `:cd820`

) as these are observed after the treatment assignment is decided. We will use a `GridSearch`

to fit an `OptimalTreePolicyMaximizer`

:

```
grid = IAI.GridSearch(
IAI.OptimalTreePolicyMaximizer(
random_seed=1,
minbucket=10,
),
max_depth=1:5,
)
IAI.fit!(grid, select(train_X, Not([:cd420, :cd820])), train_rewards)
```

```
Fitted OptimalTreePolicyMaximizer:
1) Split: age < 35.5
2) Prescribe: zidovudine and zalcitabine, 595 points, error 4377.8
3) Prescribe: zidovudine and didanosine, 474 points, error 4396.1
```

The resulting tree recommends different treatments based simply on the age of the patient.

We can make treatment prescriptions using `predict`

:

`IAI.predict(grid, train_X)`

```
1069-element Vector{String}:
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
⋮
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine"
"zidovudine and didanosine"
```

If we want more information about the relative performance of treatments for these points, we can predict the full treatment ranking with `predict_treatment_rank`

:

`IAI.predict_treatment_rank(grid, train_X)`

```
1069×4 Matrix{String}:
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" … "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" … "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
⋮ ⋱
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" … "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" … "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and zalcitabine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
"zidovudine and didanosine" "didanosine" "zidovudine"
```

To quantify the difference in performance behind the treatment rankings, we can use `predict_treatment_outcome`

to extract the estimated quality of each treatment for each point:

`IAI.predict_treatment_outcome(grid, train_X)`

```
1069×4 DataFrame
Row │ didanosine zidovudine zidovudine and didanosine zidovudine and zalc ⋯
│ Float64 Float64 Float64 Float64 ⋯
──────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37 ⋯
2 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37
3 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37
4 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42
5 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37 ⋯
6 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42
7 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42
8 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37
⋮ │ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱
1063 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42 ⋯
1064 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42
1065 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42
1066 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37
1067 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42 ⋯
1068 │ 1071.78 996.838 1052.42
1069 │ 1041.33 932.021 1087.37
1 column and 1054 rows omitted
```

## Evaluating Optimal Policy Trees

It is critical for a fair evaluation that we do not evaluate the quality of the policy using rewards from our existing reward estimator trained on the training set. This is to avoid any information from the training set leaking through to the out-of-sample evaluation.

Instead, what we need to do is to estimate a new set of rewards using only the test set, and evaluate the policy against these rewards:

```
test_rewards, test_reward_score = IAI.fit_predict!(
reward_lnr, test_X, test_treatments, test_died, test_times,
propensity_score_criterion=:misclassification,
outcome_score_criterion=:harrell_c_statistic)
test_rewards
```

```
1070×4 DataFrame
Row │ didanosine zidovudine zidovudine and didanosine zidovudine and zalc ⋯
│ Float64 Float64 Float64 Float64 ⋯
──────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1 │ 1194.02 1135.68 1188.11 1 ⋯
2 │ 1334.04 1107.71 1094.2 1
3 │ 1113.53 1565.15 1177.07 1
4 │ 1045.9 1415.26 1178.2 1
5 │ -678.639 951.897 872.011 ⋯
6 │ 1178.75 1075.76 1166.4
7 │ 771.323 625.256 3263.33
8 │ 750.545 162.174 750.057
⋮ │ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱
1064 │ 1158.64 1094.91 1277.68 1 ⋯
1065 │ 1186.69 1149.25 -2412.4 1
1066 │ 860.972 918.337 987.892 -
1067 │ 791.351 797.424 763.251 1
1068 │ 1727.16 1003.28 1019.87 ⋯
1069 │ 1708.73 422.735 846.498
1070 │ 1049.67 1168.49 1116.67 1
1 column and 1055 rows omitted
```

`test_reward_score`

```
Dict{Symbol, Any} with 2 entries:
:propensity => 0.262685
:outcome => Dict("zidovudine and zalcitabine"=>0.722348, "zidovudine"=>0.7…
```

We see the scores are similar to those on the training set, giving us confidence that the estimated rewards are a fair reflection of reality, and will serve as a good basis for evaluation.

We can now evaluate the quality using these new estimated rewards. First, we will calculate the average survival time under the treatments prescribed by the tree for the test set. To do this, we use `predict_outcomes`

which uses the model to make prescriptions and looks up the predicted outcomes under these prescriptions:

`policy_outcomes = IAI.predict_outcomes(grid, test_X, test_rewards)`

```
1070-element Vector{Float64}:
1188.1091666380607
1094.2021180331067
1177.0665783819982
1178.1970183357666
872.0108062376389
940.8756504538612
751.2474377711033
750.0566285121313
1206.271608150635
1182.4903899207156
⋮
939.1709118743534
1088.9109132175718
1277.6827120478747
-2412.3977857700565
-383.83853694591016
1089.782113429851
898.050691670649
935.9659869903758
1116.6731914729753
```

We can then get the average estimated survival times under our treatment policy:

```
using Statistics
mean(policy_outcomes)
```

`1060.4842813`

We can compare this number to the average estimated survival time under the treatment assignments that were actually observed:

`mean([test_rewards[i, test_treatments[i]] for i in 1:length(test_treatments)])`

`931.92805498`

We see that our policy leads to a sizeable improvement in survival times compared to the randomized assignments.