Xiaobin Shen | Carnegie Mellon University | PhD Student in Information Systems & Management

Clinical prediction models are often developed as if the outcome of interest were cleanly observed for every patient. This assumption fails when treatment decisions make the clinically relevant outcome permanently unobservable. As a case study of this problem, we consider post-cardiac-arrest neurological prognostication using a cohort of 2,497 patients, including 1,429 patients whose outcomes were rendered indeterminate by treatment decisions(e.g., withdrawing or limiting life-sustaining therapies, which immediately led to death, so we do not know what would have happened otherwise). These patients with indeterminate outcomes were reviewed by independent clinical experts, who provided their guesses of counterfactual outcomes about what would have happened to the patients. We refer to these patients as uncertain cases. We also have patients for whom we observe their clinically relevant outcomes (e.g., regaining consciousness); we refer to these patients as certain cases. We propose a framework for evaluating prediction models that explicitly splits the evaluation between certain and uncertain cases. Here, we cannot easily evaluate both types of cases in a uniform manner as the available target labels differ (we have known outcomes for certain cases, and guesses of counterfactual outcomes for uncertain cases). We then propose a simple prediction model that uses target labels from both certain and uncertain cases in a manner that allows us to trade off between them. Across the proposed neural model and a collection of tabular baselines, models with similar certain-case AUROC can nevertheless differ substantially in both certain-case Brier score and their probability estimates for uncertain cases. Improving alignment with target labels of uncertain cases for our proposed model generally comes at the cost of worse accuracy on certain cases, highlighting an explicit tradeoff that standard evaluation (focusing only on certain cases) conceals. These results show that when treatment decisions determine whether clinically meaningful outcomes remain observable, conventional evaluation metrics can miss important failure modes in the very patients for whom prognostic support matters most.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) from right-censored survival data is critical in high-stakes applications such as precision medicine and individualized policy-making. Yet, the survival analysis setting poses unique challenges for HTE estimation due to censoring, unobserved counterfactuals, and complex identification assumptions. Despite recent advances, from Causal Survival Forests to survival meta-learners and outcome imputation approaches, evaluation practices remain fragmented and inconsistent. We introduce SurvHTE-Bench, the first comprehensive benchmark for HTE estimation with censored outcomes. The benchmark spans (i) a modular suite of synthetic datasets with known ground truth, systematically varying causal assumptions and survival dynamics, (ii) semi-synthetic datasets that pair real-world covariates with simulated treatments and outcomes, and (iii) real-world datasets from a twin study (with known ground truth) and from an HIV clinical trial. Across synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world settings, we provide the first rigorous comparison of survival HTE methods under diverse conditions and realistic assumption violations. SurvHTE-Bench establishes a foundation for fair, reproducible, and extensible evaluation of causal survival methods.