Literature DB >> 32449222

Uncertainty in the design stage of two-stage Bayesian propensity score analysis.

Shirley X Liao1, Corwin M Zigler2.   

Abstract

The two-stage process of propensity score analysis (PSA) includes a design stage where propensity scores (PSs) are estimated and implemented to approximate a randomized experiment and an analysis stage where treatment effects are estimated conditional on the design. This article considers how uncertainty associated with the design stage impacts estimation of causal effects in the analysis stage. Such design uncertainty can derive from the fact that the PS itself is an estimated quantity, but also from other features of the design stage tied to choice of PS implementation. This article offers a procedure for obtaining the posterior distribution of causal effects after marginalizing over a distribution of design-stage outputs, lending a degree of formality to Bayesian methods for PSA that have gained attention in recent literature. Formulation of a probability distribution for the design-stage output depends on how the PS is implemented in the design stage, and propagation of uncertainty into causal estimates depends on how the treatment effect is estimated in the analysis stage. We explore these differences within a sample of commonly used PS implementations (quantile stratification, nearest-neighbor matching, caliper matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and doubly robust estimation) and investigate in a simulation study the impact of statistician choice in PS model and implementation on the degree of between- and within-design variability in the estimated treatment effect. The methods are then deployed in an investigation of the association between levels of fine particulate air pollution and elevated exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian; observational study; propensity score

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32449222      PMCID: PMC9170228          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8486

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.497


  22 in total

1.  Cutting feedback in Bayesian regression adjustment for the propensity score.

Authors:  Lawrence C McCandless; Ian J Douglas; Stephen J Evans; Liam Smeeth
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  Invited commentary: hypothetical interventions to define causal effects--afterthought or prerequisite?

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-08-24       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Kerry M Green
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2008-03

4.  Combining MCMC with 'sequential' PKPD modelling.

Authors:  David Lunn; Nicky Best; David Spiegelhalter; Gordon Graham; Beat Neuenschwander
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2009-01-09       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Doubly robust estimation of causal effects.

Authors:  Michele Jonsson Funk; Daniel Westreich; Chris Wiesen; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.

Authors:  C Arden Pope; Richard T Burnett; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle; Daniel Krewski; Kazuhiko Ito; George D Thurston
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-03-06       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research.

Authors:  Valerie S Harder; Elizabeth A Stuart; James C Anthony
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2010-09

8.  Discussion of "On Bayesian estimation of marginal structural models".

Authors:  James M Robins; Miguel A Hernán; Larry Wasserman
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Assessing PM2.5 Exposures with High Spatiotemporal Resolution across the Continental United States.

Authors:  Qian Di; Itai Kloog; Petros Koutrakis; Alexei Lyapustin; Yujie Wang; Joel Schwartz
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: a simulation study.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Dylan S Small
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Oversampling and replacement strategies in propensity score matching: a critical review focused on small sample size in clinical settings.

Authors:  Daniele Bottigliengo; Ileana Baldi; Corrado Lanera; Giulia Lorenzoni; Jonida Bejko; Tomaso Bottio; Vincenzo Tarzia; Massimiliano Carrozzini; Gino Gerosa; Paola Berchialla; Dario Gregori
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.615

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.