Literature DB >> 33327037

Vector-based kernel weighting: A simple estimator for improving precision and bias of average treatment effects in multiple treatment settings.

Melissa M Garrido1,2, Jessica Lum1, Steven D Pizer1,2.   

Abstract

Treatment effect estimation must account for observed confounding, in which factors affect treatment assignment and outcomes simultaneously. Ignoring observed confounding risks concluding that a helpful treatment is not beneficial or that a treatment is safe when actually harmful. Propensity score matching or weighting adjusts for observed confounding, but the best way to use propensity scores for multiple treatments is unknown. It is unclear when choice of a different weighting or matching strategy leads to divergent inferences. We used Monte Carlo simulations (1000 replications) to examine sensitivity of multivalued treatment inferences to propensity score weighting or matching strategies. We consider five variants of propensity score adjustment: inverse probability of treatment weights, generalized propensity score matching, kernel weights (KW), vector matching, and a new hybrid that is easily implemented-vector-based kernel weighting (VBKW). VBKW matches observations with similar propensity score vectors, assigning greater KW to observations with similar probabilities within a given bandwidth. We varied degree of propensity score model misspecification, sample size, treatment effect heterogeneity, initial covariate imbalance, and sample distribution across treatment groups. We evaluated sensitivity of results to propensity score estimation technique (multinomial logit or multinomial probit). Across simulations, VBKW performed equally or better than the other methods in terms of bias, efficiency, and covariate balance measured via prognostic scores. Our simulations suggest that VBKW is amenable to full automation and is less sensitive to PS model misspecification than other methods used to account for observed confounding in multivalued treatment analyses.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  endogeneity; matching; observed confounding; propensity score; weighting

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33327037      PMCID: PMC8258782          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8836

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  26 in total

1.  Variable selection for propensity score models.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-08-14       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Matching estimators for causal effects of multiple treatments.

Authors:  Anthony D Scotina; Francesca L Beaudoin; Roee Gutman
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  The role of prediction modeling in propensity score estimation: an evaluation of logistic regression, bCART, and the covariate-balancing propensity score.

Authors:  Richard Wyss; Alan R Ellis; M Alan Brookhart; Cynthia J Girman; Michele Jonsson Funk; Robert LoCasale; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.

Authors:  Tyler J Vanderweele; Onyebuchi A Arah
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  Propensity score matching and subclassification in observational studies with multi-level treatments.

Authors:  Shu Yang; Guido W Imbens; Zhanglin Cui; Douglas E Faries; Zbigniew Kadziola
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Investigating differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score matching and weighting: a demonstration using STAR*D trial data.

Authors:  Alan R Ellis; Stacie B Dusetzina; Richard A Hansen; Bradley N Gaynes; Joel F Farley; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Using Ensemble-Based Methods for Directly Estimating Causal Effects: An Investigation of Tree-Based G-Computation.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Estimating causal effects in observational studies using Electronic Health Data: Challenges and (some) solutions.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Eva DuGoff; Michael Abrams; David Salkever; Donald Steinwachs
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2013
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.