Literature DB >> 33653165

Neural Networks to Estimate Generalized Propensity Scores for Continuous Treatment Doses.

Zachary K Collier1, Walter L Leite2, Allison Karpyn1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The generalized propensity score (GPS) addresses selection bias due to observed confounding variables and provides a means to demonstrate causality of continuous treatment doses with propensity score analyses. Estimating the GPS with parametric models obliges researchers to meet improbable conditions such as correct model specification, normal distribution of variables, and large sample sizes.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this Monte Carlo simulation study is to examine the performance of neural networks as compared to full factorial regression models to estimate GPS in the presence of Gaussian and skewed treatment doses and small to moderate sample sizes. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A detailed conceptual introduction of neural networks is provided, as well as an illustration of selection of hyperparameters to estimate GPS. An example from public health and nutrition literature uses residential distance as a treatment variable to illustrate how neural networks can be used in a propensity score analysis to estimate a dose-response function of grocery spending behaviors.
RESULTS: We found substantially higher correlations and lower mean squared error values after comparing true GPS with the scores estimated by neural networks. The implication is that more selection bias was removed using GPS estimated with neural networks than using GPS estimated with classical regression.
CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a new methodological procedure, neural networks, to estimate GPS. Neural networks are not sensitive to the assumptions of linear regression and other parametric models and have been shown to be a contender against parametric approaches to estimate propensity scores for continuous treatments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  data mining; propensity scores; selection bias

Year:  2021        PMID: 33653165      PMCID: PMC9344588          DOI: 10.1177/0193841X21992199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eval Rev        ISSN: 0193-841X


  31 in total

Review 1.  Invited commentary: propensity scores.

Authors:  M M Joffe; P R Rosenbaum
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

3.  Abstract: Data Mining Alternatives to Logistic Regression for Propensity Score Estimation: Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines.

Authors:  Bryan S B Keller; Jee-Seon Kim; Peter M Steiner
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods.

Authors:  Thérèse A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; David A Alter; Daniel J Gottlieb; Marian J Vermeulen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm.

Authors:  M T Hagan; M B Menhaj
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Netw       Date:  1994

6.  Ensemble learning of inverse probability weights for marginal structural modeling in large observational datasets.

Authors:  Susan Gruber; Roger W Logan; Inmaculada Jarrín; Susana Monge; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Maya L Petersen; Marco Carone; Matthieu Resche Rigon; Sylvie Chevret; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 30.700

8.  Propensity score estimation: neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Justin Lessler; Michele Jonsson Funk
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  New models for old questions: generalized linear models for cost prediction.

Authors:  John L Moran; Patricia J Solomon; Aaron R Peisach; Jeffrey Martin
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.431

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.