Literature DB >> 23701015

An empirical comparison of tree-based methods for propensity score estimation.

Stephanie Watkins1, Michele Jonsson-Funk, M Alan Brookhart, Steven A Rosenberg, T Michael O'Shea, Julie Daniels.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the use of ensemble tree-based methods (random forest classification [RFC] and bagging) for propensity score estimation and to compare these methods with logistic regression, in the context of evaluating the effect of physical and occupational therapy on preschool motor ability among very low birth weight (VLBW) children. DATA SOURCE: We used secondary data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) between 2001 and 2006. STUDY
DESIGN: We estimated the predicted probability of treatment using tree-based methods and logistic regression (LR). We then modeled the exposure-outcome relation using weighted LR models while considering covariate balance and precision for each propensity score estimation method. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Among approximately 500 VLBW children, therapy receipt was associated with moderately improved preschool motor ability. Overall, ensemble methods produced the best covariate balance (Mean Squared Difference: 0.03-0.07) and the most precise effect estimates compared to LR (Mean Squared Difference: 0.11). The overall magnitude of the effect estimates was similar between RFC and LR estimation methods.
CONCLUSION: Propensity score estimation using RFC and bagging produced better covariate balance with increased precision compared to LR. Ensemble methods are a useful alterative to logistic regression to control confounding in observational studies. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Propensity scores; ensemble methods; tree-based methods

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23701015      PMCID: PMC3796115          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  18 in total

1.  Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores.

Authors:  S T Normand; M B Landrum; E Guadagnoli; J Z Ayanian; T J Ryan; P D Cleary; B J McNeil
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Muhammad M Mamdani
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.

Authors:  Heejung Bang; James M Robins
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 4.  Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.209

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

Authors:  Soko Setoguchi; Sebastian Schneeweiss; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; E Francis Cook
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Developmental coordination disorder and overweight and obesity in children aged 9-14 y.

Authors:  J Cairney; J A Hay; B E Faught; R Hawes
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.095

Review 8.  Developmental coordination disorder in school-aged children born very preterm and/or at very low birth weight: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jessica Edwards; Michelle Berube; Kelcey Erlandson; Stephanie Haug; Heather Johnstone; Meghan Meagher; Shirley Sarkodee-Adoo; Jill G Zwicker
Journal:  J Dev Behav Pediatr       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.225

9.  A trajectory of troubles: parents' impressions of the impact of developmental coordination disorder.

Authors:  Cheryl Missiuna; Sandra Moll; Susanne King; Gillian King; Mary Law
Journal:  Phys Occup Ther Pediatr       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.360

10.  Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models.

Authors:  Stephen R Cole; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  You are smarter than you think: (super) machine learning in context.

Authors:  Alexander P Keil; Jessie K Edwards
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Patterns of care and outcomes for adjuvant treatment of pT3N0 rectal cancer using the National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Thomas J Quinn; Malolan S Rajagopalan; Beant Gill; Shabnam M Mehdiabadi; Peyman Kabolizadeh
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2020-02

3.  Machine Learning for Causal Inference: On the Use of Cross-fit Estimators.

Authors:  Paul N Zivich; Alexander Breskin
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.860

4.  Survival outcomes post percutaneous coronary intervention: Why the hype about stent type? Lessons from a healthcare system in India.

Authors:  Bhanu Duggal; Jyothi Subramanian; Mona Duggal; Pushpendra Singh; Meeta Rajivlochan; Sujata Saunik; Koundinya Desiraju; Archana Avhad; Usha Ram; Sayan Sen; Anurag Agrawal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Propensity score adjustment using machine learning classification algorithms to control selection bias in online surveys.

Authors:  Ramón Ferri-García; María Del Mar Rueda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Intersections of machine learning and epidemiological methods for health services research.

Authors:  Sherri Rose
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 7.196

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.