Prognostic score-based model averaging approach for propensity score estimation.
Causal inference
Machine learning
Model averaging
Prognostic score
Propensity score
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Oct 2024
03 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
25
03
2024
accepted:
23
09
2024
medline:
4
10
2024
pubmed:
4
10
2024
entrez:
4
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Propensity scores (PS) are typically evaluated using balance metrics that focus on covariate balance, often without considering their predictive power for the outcome. This approach may not always result in optimal bias reduction in the treatment effect estimate. To address this issue, evaluating covariate balance through prognostic scores, which account for the relationship between covariates and the outcome, has been proposed. Similarly, using a typical model averaging approach for PS estimation that minimizes prediction error for treatment status and covariate imbalance does not necessarily optimize PS-based confounding adjustment. As an alternative approach, using the averaged PS model that minimizes inter-group differences in the prognostic score may further reduce bias in the treatment effect estimate. Moreover, since the prognostic score is also an estimated quantity, model averaging in the prognostic scores can help identify a better prognostic score model. Utilizing the model-averaged prognostic scores as the balance metric for constructing the averaged PS model can contribute to further decreasing bias in treatment effect estimates. This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of the PS model averaging approach based on prognostic score balance and proposes a method that uses the model-averaged prognostic score as a balance metric, evaluating its performance through simulations and empirical analysis. We conduct a series of simulations alongside an analysis of empirical observational data to compare the performances of weighted treatment effect estimates using the proposed and existing approaches. In our examination, we separately provid four candidate estimates for the PS and prognostic score models using traditional regression and machine learning methods. The model averaging of PS based on these candidate estimators is performed to either maximize the prediction accuracy of the treatment or to minimize intergroup differences in covariate distributions or prognostic scores. We also utilize not only the prognostic scores from each candidate model but also an averaged score that best predicted the outcome, for the balance assessment. The simulation and empirical data analysis reveal that our proposed model-averaging approaches for PS estimation consistently yield lower bias and less variability in treatment effect estimates across various scenarios compared to existing methods. Specifically, using the optimally averaged prognostic scores as a balance metric significantly improves the robustness of the weighted treatment effect estimates. The prognostic score-based model averaging approach for estimating PS can outperform existing model averaging methods. In particular, the estimator using the model averaging prognostic score as a balance metric can produce more robust estimates. Since our results are obtained under relatively simple conditions, applying them to real data analysis requires adjustments to obtain accurate estimates according to the complexity and dimensionality of the data. Using the prognostic score as the balance metric for the PS model averaging enhances the performance of the treatment effect estimator, which can be recommended for a wide variety of situations. When applying the proposed method to real-world data, it is important to use it in conjunction with techniques that mitigate issues arising from the complexity and high dimensionality of the data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Propensity scores (PS) are typically evaluated using balance metrics that focus on covariate balance, often without considering their predictive power for the outcome. This approach may not always result in optimal bias reduction in the treatment effect estimate. To address this issue, evaluating covariate balance through prognostic scores, which account for the relationship between covariates and the outcome, has been proposed. Similarly, using a typical model averaging approach for PS estimation that minimizes prediction error for treatment status and covariate imbalance does not necessarily optimize PS-based confounding adjustment. As an alternative approach, using the averaged PS model that minimizes inter-group differences in the prognostic score may further reduce bias in the treatment effect estimate. Moreover, since the prognostic score is also an estimated quantity, model averaging in the prognostic scores can help identify a better prognostic score model. Utilizing the model-averaged prognostic scores as the balance metric for constructing the averaged PS model can contribute to further decreasing bias in treatment effect estimates. This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of the PS model averaging approach based on prognostic score balance and proposes a method that uses the model-averaged prognostic score as a balance metric, evaluating its performance through simulations and empirical analysis.
METHODS
METHODS
We conduct a series of simulations alongside an analysis of empirical observational data to compare the performances of weighted treatment effect estimates using the proposed and existing approaches. In our examination, we separately provid four candidate estimates for the PS and prognostic score models using traditional regression and machine learning methods. The model averaging of PS based on these candidate estimators is performed to either maximize the prediction accuracy of the treatment or to minimize intergroup differences in covariate distributions or prognostic scores. We also utilize not only the prognostic scores from each candidate model but also an averaged score that best predicted the outcome, for the balance assessment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The simulation and empirical data analysis reveal that our proposed model-averaging approaches for PS estimation consistently yield lower bias and less variability in treatment effect estimates across various scenarios compared to existing methods. Specifically, using the optimally averaged prognostic scores as a balance metric significantly improves the robustness of the weighted treatment effect estimates.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The prognostic score-based model averaging approach for estimating PS can outperform existing model averaging methods. In particular, the estimator using the model averaging prognostic score as a balance metric can produce more robust estimates. Since our results are obtained under relatively simple conditions, applying them to real data analysis requires adjustments to obtain accurate estimates according to the complexity and dimensionality of the data.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Using the prognostic score as the balance metric for the PS model averaging enhances the performance of the treatment effect estimator, which can be recommended for a wide variety of situations. When applying the proposed method to real-world data, it is important to use it in conjunction with techniques that mitigate issues arising from the complexity and high dimensionality of the data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39363252
doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02350-y
pii: 10.1186/s12874-024-02350-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Subventions
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 23K17245
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. 1983;70(1):41–55.
Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Cook EF. Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: A simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(6):546–55.
doi: 10.1002/pds.1555
pubmed: 18311848
pmcid: 2905676
Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med. 2010;29(3):337–46.
doi: 10.1002/sim.3782
pubmed: 19960510
pmcid: 2807890
Pirracchio R, Petersen ML, Van Der Laan M. Improving propensity score estimators’ robustness to model misspecification using super learner. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(2):108–19.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu253
pubmed: 25515168
Westreich D, Cole SR, Funk MJ, Brookhart MA, Stürmer T. The role of the c-statistic in variable selection for propensity score models. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(3):317–20.
doi: 10.1002/pds.2074
pubmed: 21351315
Xie Y, Zhu Y, Cotton CA, Wu P. A model averaging approach for estimating propensity scores by optimizing balance. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(1):84–101.
doi: 10.1177/0962280217715487
pubmed: 28712346
Stuart EA, Lee BK, Leacy FP. Prognostic score–based balance measures for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8 0):S84–S90.e1.
Arbogast PG, Ray WA. Use of disease risk scores in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18(1):67–80.
doi: 10.1177/0962280208092347
pubmed: 18562398
Hansen BB, Hansen BB. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika. 2008;95(2):481–8.
doi: 10.1093/biomet/asn004
Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(12):1149–56.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj149
pubmed: 16624967
Patrick AR, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, et al. The implications of propensity score variable selection strategies in pharmacoepidemiology - an empirical illustration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(6):551–9.
doi: 10.1002/pds.2098
pubmed: 21394812
pmcid: 3123427
Myers JA, Rassen JA, Gagne JJ, Huybrechts KF, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Practice of epidemiology effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(11):1213–22.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr364
pubmed: 22025356
pmcid: 3254160
Shortreed SM, Ertefaie A. Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference. Biometrics. 2017;73(4):1111–22.
doi: 10.1111/biom.12679
pubmed: 28273693
pmcid: 5591052
Kabata D, Shintani M. Variable selection in double/debiased machine learning for causal inference: an outcome-adaptive approach. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2021;52(12):5880–93.
doi: 10.1080/03610918.2021.2001655
Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med. 2004;23(19):2937–60.
doi: 10.1002/sim.1903
pubmed: 15351954
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–79.
doi: 10.1002/sim.6607
pubmed: 26238958
pmcid: 4626409
Van Der Laan MJ, Polley EC, Hubbard AE. Super learner. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2007;6(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1544-6115.1309 .
Shirai D, Shinkawa H, Kabata D, Takemura S, Tanaka S, Amano R, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection reduces postoperative infection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-based analysis. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(12):9194–203.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09403-7
pubmed: 35838833
Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(12):855–7.
doi: 10.1002/pds.968
pubmed: 15386710
Rosenbaum PR. Various Practical Issues in Matching. In: Rosenbaum PR, editor. Design of Observational Studies. New York: Springer New York; 2010. p. 187–95.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1213-8_9
Naimi AI, Mishler AE, Kennedy EH. Challenges in obtaining valid causal effect estimates with machine learning algorithms. Am J Epidemiol. 2023;192(9):1536–44.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab201
Balzer LB, Westling T. Invited commentary: demystifying statistical inference when using machine learning in causal research. Am J Epidemiol. 2023;192(9):1545–9.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab200
Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, Duflo E, Hansen C, Newey W, et al. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econom J. 2018;21(1):C1–68.
doi: 10.1111/ectj.12097
Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(3):e18174.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018174
pubmed: 21483818
pmcid: 3069059
Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, Duflo E, Hansen C, Newey W. Double/debiased/neyman machine learning of treatment effects. Am Econ Rev. 2017;107(5):261–5.
doi: 10.1257/aer.p20171038