Literature DB >> 28273693

Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference.

Susan M Shortreed1,2, Ashkan Ertefaie3,4.   

Abstract

Methodological advancements, including propensity score methods, have resulted in improved unbiased estimation of treatment effects from observational data. Traditionally, a "throw in the kitchen sink" approach has been used to select covariates for inclusion into the propensity score, but recent work shows including unnecessary covariates can impact both the bias and statistical efficiency of propensity score estimators. In particular, the inclusion of covariates that impact exposure but not the outcome, can inflate standard errors without improving bias, while the inclusion of covariates associated with the outcome but unrelated to exposure can improve precision. We propose the outcome-adaptive lasso for selecting appropriate covariates for inclusion in propensity score models to account for confounding bias and maintaining statistical efficiency. This proposed approach can perform variable selection in the presence of a large number of spurious covariates, that is, covariates unrelated to outcome or exposure. We present theoretical and simulation results indicating that the outcome-adaptive lasso selects the propensity score model that includes all true confounders and predictors of outcome, while excluding other covariates. We illustrate covariate selection using the outcome-adaptive lasso, including comparison to alternative approaches, using simulated data and in a survey of patients using opioid therapy to manage chronic pain.
© 2017, The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative effectiveness; Model selection; Observational studies; Propensity score

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28273693      PMCID: PMC5591052          DOI: 10.1111/biom.12679

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  26 in total

1.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study.

Authors:  Jared K Lunceford; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.

Authors:  Jessica A Myers; Jeremy A Rassen; Joshua J Gagne; Krista F Huybrechts; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Marshall M Joffe; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Collaborative double robust targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan; Susan Gruber
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Invited commentary: variable selection versus shrinkage in the control of multiple confounders.

Authors:  Sander Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-01-27       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Confounder selection via penalized credible regions.

Authors:  Ander Wilson; Brian J Reich
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Regularization Methods for High-Dimensional Instrumental Variables Regression With an Application to Genetical Genomics.

Authors:  Wei Lin; Rui Feng; Hongzhe Li
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 5.033

8.  Prescription opioid analgesics increase the risk of depression.

Authors:  Jeffrey F Scherrer; Dragan M Svrakic; Kenneth E Freedland; Timothy Chrusciel; Sumitra Balasubramanian; Kathleen K Bucholz; Elizabeth V Lawler; Patrick J Lustman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population.

Authors:  Kurt Kroenke; Tara W Strine; Robert L Spitzer; Janet B W Williams; Joyce T Berry; Ali H Mokdad
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 4.839

10.  Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Enrique F Schisterman; Stephen R Cole; Robert W Platt
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.822

View more
  21 in total

1.  Evaluating large-scale propensity score performance through real-world and synthetic data experiments.

Authors:  Yuxi Tian; Martijn J Schuemie; Marc A Suchard
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  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

3.  Discussion of "Data-driven confounder selection via Markov and Bayesian networks" by Häggström.

Authors:  Thomas S Richardson; James M Robins; Linbo Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  High-Dimensional Confounding Adjustment Using Continuous Spike and Slab Priors.

Authors:  Joseph Antonelli; Giovanni Parmigiani; Francesca Dominici
Journal:  Bayesian Anal       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.728

5.  Sufficient Dimension Reduction for Feasible and Robust Estimation of Average Causal Effect.

Authors:  Trinetri Ghosh; Yanyuan Ma; Xavier de Luna
Journal:  Stat Sin       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.330

6.  The role of lipid peroxidation in individuals with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Kunio Yui; George Imataka; Hitomi Sasaki; Ryoichi Shiroki
Journal:  Metab Brain Dis       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 3.584

7.  Causal inference in high dimensions: A marriage between Bayesian modeling and good frequentist properties.

Authors:  Joseph Antonelli; Georgia Papadogeorgou; Francesca Dominici
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  When Can Nonrandomized Studies Support Valid Inference Regarding Effectiveness or Safety of New Medical Treatments?

Authors:  Jessica M Franklin; Richard Platt; Nancy A Dreyer; Alex John London; Gregory E Simon; Jonathan H Watanabe; Michael Horberg; Adrian Hernandez; Robert M Califf
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-05-09       Impact factor: 6.903

9.  Estimating average treatment effects with a double-index propensity score.

Authors:  David Cheng; Abhishek Chakrabortty; Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.

Authors:  John W Jackson; Ian Schmid; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2017-11-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.