Literature DB >> 18311848

Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study.

Soko Setoguchi1, Sebastian Schneeweiss, M Alan Brookhart, Robert J Glynn, E Francis Cook.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In propensity score modeling, it is a standard practice to optimize the prediction of exposure status based on the covariate information. In a simulation study, we examined in what situations analyses based on various types of exposure propensity score (EPS) models using data mining techniques such as recursive partitioning (RP) and neural networks (NN) produce unbiased and/or efficient results.
METHOD: We simulated data for a hypothetical cohort study (n = 2000) with a binary exposure/outcome and 10 binary/continuous covariates with seven scenarios differing by non-linear and/or non-additive associations between exposure and covariates. EPS models used logistic regression (LR) (all possible main effects), RP1 (without pruning), RP2 (with pruning), and NN. We calculated c-statistics (C), standard errors (SE), and bias of exposure-effect estimates from outcome models for the PS-matched dataset.
RESULTS: Data mining techniques yielded higher C than LR (mean: NN, 0.86; RPI, 0.79; RP2, 0.72; and LR, 0.76). SE tended to be greater in models with higher C. Overall bias was small for each strategy, although NN estimates tended to be the least biased. C was not correlated with the magnitude of bias (correlation coefficient [COR] = -0.3, p = 0.1) but increased SE (COR = 0.7, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Effect estimates from EPS models by simple LR were generally robust. NN models generally provided the least numerically biased estimates. C was not associated with the magnitude of bias but was with the increased SE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18311848      PMCID: PMC2905676          DOI: 10.1002/pds.1555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  16 in total

1.  Variable selection for propensity score models.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 2.  Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores.

Authors:  D B Rubin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction who are initially admitted to stepdown units: data from the Multicenter Chest Pain Study.

Authors:  N H Fiebach; E F Cook; T H Lee; D A Brand; G W Rouan; M Weisberg; L Goldman
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Splenectomy and risk of blast transformation in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. Italian Cooperative Study Group on Myeloid with Myeloid Metaplasia.

Authors:  G Barosi; A Ambrosetti; A Centra; A Falcone; C Finelli; P Foa; A Grossi; R Guarnone; S Rupoli; L Luciano; M C Petti; E Pogliani; D Russo; M Ruggeri; S Quaglini
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 22.113

5.  Some insights into Miettinen's multivariate confounder score approach to case-control study analysis.

Authors:  M C Pike; J Anderson; N Day
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  A computer protocol to predict myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with chest pain.

Authors:  L Goldman; E F Cook; D A Brand; T H Lee; G W Rouan; M C Weisberg; D Acampora; C Stasiulewicz; J Walshon; G Terranova
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-03-31       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group.

Authors:  S Hulley; D Grady; T Bush; C Furberg; D Herrington; B Riggs; E Vittinghoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-08-19       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Use of an artificial neural network for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  W G Baxt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Propensity score adjustment for pretreatment differences between hospitalized and ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Investigators.

Authors:  R A Stone; D S Obrosky; D E Singer; W N Kapoor; M J Fine
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jacques E Rossouw; Garnet L Anderson; Ross L Prentice; Andrea Z LaCroix; Charles Kooperberg; Marcia L Stefanick; Rebecca D Jackson; Shirley A A Beresford; Barbara V Howard; Karen C Johnson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Judith Ockene
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  55 in total

1.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

2.  Machine learning outcome regression improves doubly robust estimation of average causal effects.

Authors:  Byeong Yeob Choi; Chen-Pin Wang; Jonathan Gelfond
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Richard Wyss; J Bradley Layton; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2013-09-10

4.  Model Misspecification When Excluding Instrumental Variables From PS Models in Settings Where Instruments Modify the Effects of Covariates on Treatment.

Authors:  Richard Wyss; Alan R Ellis; Mark Lunt; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Epidemiol Methods       Date:  2014-12

5.  A novel approach for propensity score matching and stratification for multiple treatments: Application to an electronic health record-derived study.

Authors:  Derek W Brown; Stacia M DeSantis; Thomas J Greene; Vahed Maroufy; Ashraf Yaseen; Hulin Wu; George Williams; Michael D Swartz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Performing an Informatics Consult: Methods and Challenges.

Authors:  Alejandro Schuler; Alison Callahan; Kenneth Jung; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Propensity scores for confounder adjustment when assessing the effects of medical interventions using nonexperimental study designs.

Authors:  T Stürmer; R Wyss; R J Glynn; M A Brookhart
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 8.  Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.

Authors:  Jeff Y Yang; Michael Webster-Clark; Jennifer L Lund; Robert S Sandler; Evan S Dellon; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Veridical Causal Inference using Propensity Score Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research with Medical Claims.

Authors:  Ryan D Ross; Xu Shi; Megan E V Caram; Pheobe A Tsao; Paul Lin; Amy Bohnert; Min Zhang; Bhramar Mukherjee
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2020-10-20

10.  Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning.

Authors:  Brian K Lee; Justin Lessler; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.