Literature DB >> 24516006

Targeted estimation of nuisance parameters to obtain valid statistical inference.

Mark J van der Laan.   

Abstract

In order to obtain concrete results, we focus on estimation of the treatment specific mean, controlling for all measured baseline covariates, based on observing independent and identically distributed copies of a random variable consisting of baseline covariates, a subsequently assigned binary treatment, and a final outcome. The statistical model only assumes possible restrictions on the conditional distribution of treatment, given the covariates, the so-called propensity score. Estimators of the treatment specific mean involve estimation of the propensity score and/or estimation of the conditional mean of the outcome, given the treatment and covariates. In order to make these estimators asymptotically unbiased at any data distribution in the statistical model, it is essential to use data-adaptive estimators of these nuisance parameters such as ensemble learning, and specifically super-learning. Because such estimators involve optimal trade-off of bias and variance w.r.t. the infinite dimensional nuisance parameter itself, they result in a sub-optimal bias/variance trade-off for the resulting real-valued estimator of the estimand. We demonstrate that additional targeting of the estimators of these nuisance parameters guarantees that this bias for the estimand is second order and thereby allows us to prove theorems that establish asymptotic linearity of the estimator of the treatment specific mean under regularity conditions. These insights result in novel targeted minimum loss-based estimators (TMLEs) that use ensemble learning with additional targeted bias reduction to construct estimators of the nuisance parameters. In particular, we construct collaborative TMLEs (C-TMLEs) with known influence curve allowing for statistical inference, even though these C-TMLEs involve variable selection for the propensity score based on a criterion that measures how effective the resulting fit of the propensity score is in removing bias for the estimand. As a particular special case, we also demonstrate the required targeting of the propensity score for the inverse probability of treatment weighted estimator using super-learning to fit the propensity score.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24516006     DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2012-0038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Biostat        ISSN: 1557-4679            Impact factor:   0.968


  21 in total

1.  Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Maya L Petersen; Mark van der Laan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Improved precision in the analysis of randomized trials with survival outcomes, without assuming proportional hazards.

Authors:  Iván Díaz; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Daniel F Hanley; Michael Rosenblum
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 1.588

3.  Doubly robust nonparametric inference on the average treatment effect.

Authors:  D Benkeser; M Carone; M J Van Der Laan; P B Gilbert
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 2.445

4.  Exercise During the First Trimester and Infant Size at Birth: Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Causal Risk Difference.

Authors:  Samantha F Ehrlich; Romain S Neugebauer; Juanran Feng; Monique M Hedderson; Assiamira Ferrara
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  The Right Tool for the Job: Choosing Between Covariate-balancing and Generalized Boosted Model Propensity Scores.

Authors:  Claude M Setodji; Daniel F McCaffrey; Lane F Burgette; Daniel Almirall; Beth Ann Griffin
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  An alternative robust estimator of average treatment effect in causal inference.

Authors:  Jianxuan Liu; Yanyuan Ma; Lan Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Chasing balance and other recommendations for improving nonparametric propensity score models.

Authors:  B A Griffin; D McCaffrey; D Almirall; C Setodji; L Burgette
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2017-01-13

8.  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

9.  Longitudinal Mediation Analysis with Time-varying Mediators and Exposures, with Application to Survival Outcomes.

Authors:  Wenjing Zheng; Mark van der Laan
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2017-06-23

10.  Discussion of Identification, Estimation and Approximation of Risk under Interventions that Depend on the Natural Value of Treatment Using Observational Data, by Jessica Young, Miguel Hernán, and James Robins.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan; Alexander R Luedtke; Iván Díaz
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2014-11-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.