OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of a targeted maximum likelihood estimator (TMLE) and a collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) to other estimators in a drug safety analysis, including a regression-based estimator, propensity score (PS)-based estimators, and an alternate doubly robust (DR) estimator in a real example and simulations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The real data set is a subset of observational data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California formatted for use in active drug safety surveillance. Both the real and simulated data sets include potential confounders, a treatment variable indicating use of one of two antidiabetic treatments and an outcome variable indicating occurrence of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESULTS: In the real data example, there is no difference in AMI rates between treatments. In simulations, the double robustness property is demonstrated: DR estimators are consistent if either the initial outcome regression or PS estimator is consistent, whereas other estimators are inconsistent if the initial estimator is not consistent. In simulations with near-positivity violations, CTMLE performs well relative to other estimators by adaptively estimating the PS. CONCLUSION: Each of the DR estimators was consistent, and TMLE and CTMLE had the smallest mean squared error in simulations.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of a targeted maximum likelihood estimator (TMLE) and a collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) to other estimators in a drug safety analysis, including a regression-based estimator, propensity score (PS)-based estimators, and an alternate doubly robust (DR) estimator in a real example and simulations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The real data set is a subset of observational data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California formatted for use in active drug safety surveillance. Both the real and simulated data sets include potential confounders, a treatment variable indicating use of one of two antidiabetic treatments and an outcome variable indicating occurrence of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESULTS: In the real data example, there is no difference in AMI rates between treatments. In simulations, the double robustness property is demonstrated: DR estimators are consistent if either the initial outcome regression or PS estimator is consistent, whereas other estimators are inconsistent if the initial estimator is not consistent. In simulations with near-positivity violations, CTMLE performs well relative to other estimators by adaptively estimating the PS. CONCLUSION: Each of the DR estimators was consistent, and TMLE and CTMLE had the smallest mean squared error in simulations.
Authors: Penelope P Howards; Enrique F Schisterman; Charles Poole; Jay S Kaufman; Clarice R Weinberg Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Oliver Bembom; Maya L Petersen; Soo-Yon Rhee; W Jeffrey Fessel; Sandra E Sinisi; Robert W Shafer; Mark J van der Laan Journal: Stat Med Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Menglan Pang; Tibor Schuster; Kristian B Filion; Mireille E Schnitzer; Maria Eberg; Robert W Platt Journal: Int J Biostat Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 0.968
Authors: Heather K Amato; Caitlin Hemlock; Kristin L Andrejko; Anna R Smith; Nima S Hejazi; Alan E Hubbard; Sharat C Verma; Ramesh K Adhikari; Dhiraj Pokhrel; Kirk Smith; Jay P Graham; Amod Pokhrel Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Rishi J Desai; Michael E Matheny; Kevin Johnson; Keith Marsolo; Lesley H Curtis; Jennifer C Nelson; Patrick J Heagerty; Judith Maro; Jeffery Brown; Sengwee Toh; Michael Nguyen; Robert Ball; Gerald Dal Pan; Shirley V Wang; Joshua J Gagne; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-12-20