Literature DB >> 35821911

stratamatch: Prognostic Score Stratification Using a Pilot Design.

Rachael C Aikens1, Joseph Rigdon2, Justin Lee1, Michael Baiocchi1, Andrew B Goldstone1, Peter Chiu1, Y Joseph Woo1, Jonathan H Chen1.   

Abstract

In a block-randomized controlled trial, individuals are subdivided by prognostically important baseline characteristics (e.g., age group, sex, or smoking status), prior to randomization. This step reduces the heterogeneity between the treatment groups with respect to the baseline factors most important to determining the outcome, thus enabling more precise estimation of treatment effect. The stratamatch package extends this approach to the observational setting by implementing functions to separate an observational data set into strata and interrogate the quality of different stratification schemes. Once an acceptable stratification is found, treated and control individuals can be matched by propensity score within strata, thereby recapitulating the block-randomized trial design for the observational study. The stratification scheme implemented by stratamatch applies a "pilot design" approach (Aikens, Greaves, and Baiocchi 2019) to estimate a quantity called the prognostic score (Hansen 2008), which is used to divide individuals into strata. The potential benefits of such an approach are twofold. First, stratifying the data enables more computationally efficient matching of large data sets. Second, methodological studies suggest that using a prognostic score to inform the matching process increases the precision of the effect estimate and reduces sensitivity to bias from unmeasured confounding factors (Aikens et al. 2019; Leacy and Stuart 2014; Antonelli, Cefalu, Palmer, and Agniel 2018). A common mistake is to believe reserving more data for the analysis phase of a study is always better. Instead, the stratamatch approach suggests how clever use of data in the design phase of large studies can lead to major benefits in the robustness of the study conclusions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  R; causal inference; matching; pilot designs; prognostic score; stratification

Year:  2021        PMID: 35821911      PMCID: PMC9273035          DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2021-063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  R J        ISSN: 2073-4859            Impact factor:   1.673


  6 in total

1.  Variable-ratio matching with fine balance in a study of the Peer Health Exchange.

Authors:  Samuel D Pimentel; Frank Yoon; Luke Keele
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Using Design Thinking to Differentiate Useful From Misleading Evidence in Observational Research.

Authors:  Steven N Goodman; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Michael Baiocchi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study.

Authors:  Finbarr P Leacy; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent.

Authors:  Jerome Friedman; Trevor Hastie; Rob Tibshirani
Journal:  J Stat Softw       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 6.440

5.  Doubly robust matching estimators for high dimensional confounding adjustment.

Authors:  Joseph Antonelli; Matthew Cefalu; Nathan Palmer; Denis Agniel
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Reversals and limitations on high-intensity, life-sustaining treatments.

Authors:  Gustavo Chavez; Ilana B Richman; Rajani Kaimal; Jason Bentley; Lee Ann Yasukawa; Russ B Altman; Vyjeyanthi S Periyakoil; Jonathan H Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.