case_images: PMC10106735_01
case_images: Estimated overall failure rates and 95% confidence intervals for the eight combinatorial drug treatments under consideration (with no adjustment for multiplicity) (1: lopinavir-ritonavir-arbidol, 2: interferon, 3: methylprednisolone, 4: tocilizumab, 5: oseltamivir, 6: ribavirin, 7: favipiravir, 8: hydroxychloroquine).
case_images: frai-06-1123285-g0004.jpg
case_images: PMC10106735_01_frai-06-1123285-g0004.jpg
case_images: F4
case_images: The corresponding MCB test results are provided in Supplementary Figure S4.
case_images: Variable importance ranking by the random forests in terms of the total decrease in node impurity (i.e., residual sum of squares) from splitting on the variable, averaged over all trees.
case_images: frai-06-1123285-g0005.jpg
case_images: PMC10106735_01_frai-06-1123285-g0005.jpg
case_images: F5
case_images: The point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are shown in Figure 7, and the corresponding MCB test results are presented in Supplementary Figure S5. Table 4 summarizes our main findings (i.e., the best combinatorial treatment selection in different patient subgroups) based on both point estimate results (from Figure 7) and MCB test results (from Supplementary Figure S5), and displays the most promising treatment (with the lowest estimated failure rate) in each of the 11 subgroups studied.
case_images: Estimated failure rates and 95% confidence intervals for the eight combinatorial drug treatments under consideration (with no adjustment for multiplicity), in subgroups defined by the top five covariates (one at a time). The lowest estimated failure rate in each subgroup is shown in red.
case_images: frai-06-1123285-g0006.jpg
case_images: PMC10106735_01_frai-06-1123285-g0006.jpg
case_images: F6
case_images: Figure 6 shows the main results (point estimates and 95% confidence intervals) of this evaluation. We summarized our observations from Figure 6 and Supplementary Figure S4 into Table 3.
case_images: Estimated failure rates and 95% confidence intervals for the eight combinatorial drug treatments under consideration (with no adjustment for multiplicity), in 3 x 2 x 2 subgroups defined by age, SBP and CRP. The lowest estimated failure rate in each subgroup is shown in red.
case_images: frai-06-1123285-g0007.jpg
case_images: PMC10106735_01_frai-06-1123285-g0007.jpg
case_images: F7
case_images: The point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are shown in Figure 7, and the corresponding MCB test results are presented in Supplementary Figure S5. Table 4 summarizes our main findings (i.e., the best combinatorial treatment selection in different patient subgroups) based on both point estimate results (from Figure 7) and MCB test results (from Supplementary Figure S5), and displays the most promising treatment (with the lowest estimated failure rate) in each of the 11 subgroups studied.