Confounding Masquerading as Improvement: A Systematic Evaluation of Offline Reinforcement Learning for Stroke Antithrombotic Treatment in a 129,000-Patient Registry
TL;DR
This work conducts a systematic, partially crossed evaluation of five offline RL algorithm families and 14 reward designs in 44,894 post-2018 acute ischemic stroke patients from a nationwide registry, and provides an empirically motivated six-step evaluation checklist.
Abstract
Recent offline reinforcement learning (RL) studies report policies that outperform physician decisions on clinical outcomes. We conduct a systematic, partially crossed evaluation of five offline RL algorithm families and 14 reward designs in 44,894 post-2018 acute ischemic stroke patients from a nationwide registry (N = 129,033). Standard Fitted Q-Evaluation (FQE) yields an apparent policy-improvement estimate of +0.0069; adding an Early Neurological Deterioration penalty increases it to +0.0101. We identify reward-embedded confounding, in which a proxy terminal reward encodes baseline severity and prognosis as well as treatment efficacy. A 2 x 2 factorial analysis finds that terminal reward confounding accounts for 218.6% of the observed signal change, so its removal overshoots the null. After DML-inspired GBM reward residualization, the FQE estimate attenuates to +0.0033 (p = 0.132), and full deconfounding yields +0.0025 (p = 0.291). FQE-based diagnostics, T-learner analyses, and direct recurrence analyses converge away from a clinically meaningful aggregate improvement. A 1-year mRS factorial analysis replicates the attenuation. We provide an empirically motivated six-step evaluation checklist. NIHSS-stratified heterogeneity is hypothesis-generating for prospective trial design; hospital-level disagreement does not persist after full reward deconfounding.
