Literature DB >> 22822256

A note on overadjustment in inverse probability weighted estimation.

Andrea Rotnitzky1, Lingling Li, Xiaochun Li.   

Abstract

Standardized means, commonly used in observational studies in epidemiology to adjust for potential confounders, are equal to inverse probability weighted means with inverse weights equal to the empirical propensity scores. More refined standardization corresponds with empirical propensity scores computed under more flexible models. Unnecessary standardization induces efficiency loss. However, according to the theory of inverse probability weighted estimation, propensity scores estimated under more flexible models induce improvement in the precision of inverse probability weighted means. This apparent contradiction is clarified by explicitly stating the assumptions under which the improvement in precision is attained.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 22822256      PMCID: PMC3371719          DOI: 10.1093/biomet/asq049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrika        ISSN: 0006-3444            Impact factor:   2.445


  5 in total

1.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.

Authors:  N MANTEL; W HAENSZEL
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1959-04       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  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

3.  Improved odds ratio estimation by post hoc stratification of case-control data.

Authors:  M Neuhäuser; H Becher
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies.

Authors:  W G Cochran
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1968-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Design and analysis of case-control studies.

Authors:  N Breslow
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 21.981

  5 in total
  9 in total

1.  The relative performance of targeted maximum likelihood estimators.

Authors:  Kristin E Porter; Susan Gruber; Mark J van der Laan; Jasjeet S Sekhon
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  Leveraging prognostic baseline variables to gain precision in randomized trials.

Authors:  Elizabeth Colantuoni; Michael Rosenblum
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Automated analyses: Because we can, does it mean we should?

Authors:  Susan M Shortreed; Erica E M Moodie
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 2.901

4.  Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference.

Authors:  Susan M Shortreed; Ashkan Ertefaie
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Variable Selection for Confounder Control, Flexible Modeling and Collaborative Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation in Causal Inference.

Authors:  Mireille E Schnitzer; Judith J Lok; Susan Gruber
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 0.968

6.  Inverse probability weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized studies.

Authors:  Changyu Shen; Xiaochun Li; Lingling Li
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Evaluating predictors of competing risk outcomes when censoring depends on time-dependent covariates, with application to safety and efficacy of HIV treatment.

Authors:  Judith J Lok; Michael D Hughes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Perioperative use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Qian Ding; Zugui Zhang; Hong Liu; Huang Nie; Mark Berguson; Jordan E Goldhammer; Nilas Young; Douglas Boyd; Rohinton Morris; Jianzhong Sun
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  G-computation, propensity score-based methods, and targeted maximum likelihood estimator for causal inference with different covariates sets: a comparative simulation study.

Authors:  Arthur Chatton; Florent Le Borgne; Clémence Leyrat; Florence Gillaizeau; Chloé Rousseau; Laetitia Barbin; David Laplaud; Maxime Léger; Bruno Giraudeau; Yohann Foucher
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.