Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

35 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Model feedback in Bayesian propensity score estimation.

ABSTRACT: Methods based on the propensity score comprise one set of valuable tools for comparative effectiveness research and for estimating causal effects more generally. These methods typically consist of two distinct stages: (1) a propensity score stage where a model is fit to predict the propensity to receive treatment (the propensity score), and (2) an outcome stage where responses are compared in treated and untreated units having similar values of the estimated propensity score. Traditional techniques conduct estimation in these two stages separately; estimates from the first stage are treated as fixed and known for use in the second stage. Bayesian methods have natural appeal in these settings because separate likelihoods for the two stages can be combined into a single joint likelihood, with estimation of the two stages carried out simultaneously. One key feature of joint estimation in this context is "feedback" between the outcome stage and the propensity score stage, meaning that quantities in a model for the outcome contribute information to posterior distributions of quantities in the model for the propensity score. We provide a rigorous assessment of Bayesian propensity score estimation to show that model feedback can produce poor estimates of causal effects absent strategies that augment propensity score adjustment with adjustment for individual covariates. We illustrate this phenomenon with a simulation study and with a comparative effectiveness investigation of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy among 123,286 Medicare beneficiaries hospitlized for stroke in 2006 and 2007.

SUBMITTER: Zigler CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3622139 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Uncertainty in Propensity Score Estimation: Bayesian Methods for Variable Selection and Model Averaged Causal Effects.

Project description:Causal inference with observational data frequently relies on the notion of the propensity score (PS) to adjust treatment comparisons for observed confounding factors. As decisions in the era of "big data" are increasingly reliant on large and complex collections of digital data, researchers are frequently confronted with decisions regarding which of a high-dimensional covariate set to include in the PS model in order to satisfy the assumptions necessary for estimating average causal effects. Typically, simple or ad-hoc methods are employed to arrive at a single PS model, without acknowledging the uncertainty associated with the model selection. We propose three Bayesian methods for PS variable selection and model averaging that 1) select relevant variables from a set of candidate variables to include in the PS model and 2) estimate causal treatment effects as weighted averages of estimates under different PS models. The associated weight for each PS model reflects the data-driven support for that model's ability to adjust for the necessary variables. We illustrate features of our proposed approaches with a simulation study, and ultimately use our methods to compare the effectiveness of surgical vs. nonsurgical treatment for brain tumors among 2,606 Medicare beneficiaries. Supplementary materials are available online.

| S-EPMC3969816 | biostudies-literature

An empirical comparison of tree-based methods for propensity score estimation.

Project description:To illustrate the use of ensemble tree-based methods (random forest classification [RFC] and bagging) for propensity score estimation and to compare these methods with logistic regression, in the context of evaluating the effect of physical and occupational therapy on preschool motor ability among very low birth weight (VLBW) children.We used secondary data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) between 2001 and 2006.We estimated the predicted probability of treatment using tree-based methods and logistic regression (LR). We then modeled the exposure-outcome relation using weighted LR models while considering covariate balance and precision for each propensity score estimation method.Among approximately 500 VLBW children, therapy receipt was associated with moderately improved preschool motor ability. Overall, ensemble methods produced the best covariate balance (Mean Squared Difference: 0.03-0.07) and the most precise effect estimates compared to LR (Mean Squared Difference: 0.11). The overall magnitude of the effect estimates was similar between RFC and LR estimation methods.Propensity score estimation using RFC and bagging produced better covariate balance with increased precision compared to LR. Ensemble methods are a useful alterative to logistic regression to control confounding in observational studies.

| S-EPMC3796115 | biostudies-literature

Flexible propensity score estimation strategies for clustered data in observational studies.

Project description:Existing studies have suggested superior performance of nonparametric machine learning over logistic regression for propensity score estimation. However, it is unclear whether the advantages of nonparametric propensity score modeling are carried to settings where there is clustering of individuals, especially when there is unmeasured cluster-level confounding. In this work we examined the performance of logistic regression (all main effects), Bayesian additive regression trees and generalized boosted modeling for propensity score weighting in clustered settings, with the clustering being accounted for by including either cluster indicators or random intercepts. We simulated data for three hypothetical observational studies of varying sample and cluster sizes. Confounders were generated at both levels, including a cluster-level confounder that is unobserved in the analyses. A binary treatment and a continuous outcome were generated based on seven scenarios with varying relationships between the treatment and confounders (linear and additive, nonlinear/nonadditive, nonadditive with the unobserved cluster-level confounder). Results suggest that when the sample and cluster sizes are large, nonparametric propensity score estimation may provide better covariate balance, bias reduction, and 95% confidence interval coverage, regardless of the degree of nonlinearity or nonadditivity in the true propensity score model. When the sample or cluster sizes are small, however, nonparametric approaches may become more vulnerable to unmeasured cluster-level confounding and thus may not be a better alternative to multilevel logistic regression. We applied the methods to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health data, estimating the effect of team sports participation during adolescence on adulthood depressive symptoms.

| S-EPMC9996644 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description:The covariate-balancing propensity score (CBPS) extends logistic regression to simultaneously optimize covariate balance and treatment prediction. Although the CBPS has been shown to perform well in certain settings, its performance has not been evaluated in settings specific to pharmacoepidemiology and large database research. In this study, we use both simulations and empirical data to compare the performance of the CBPS with logistic regression and boosted classification and regression trees. We simulated various degrees of model misspecification to evaluate the robustness of each propensity score (PS) estimation method. We then applied these methods to compare the effect of initiating glucagonlike peptide-1 agonists versus sulfonylureas on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in the US Medicare population in 2007-2009. In simulations, the CBPS was generally more robust in terms of balancing covariates and reducing bias compared with misspecified logistic PS models and boosted classification and regression trees. All PS estimation methods performed similarly in the empirical example. For settings common to pharmacoepidemiology, logistic regression with balance checks to assess model specification is a valid method for PS estimation, but it can require refitting multiple models until covariate balance is achieved. The CBPS is a promising method to improve the robustness of PS models.

| S-EPMC4157700 | biostudies-literature

Bayesian Approach for Addressing Differential Covariate Measurement Error in Propensity Score Methods.

Project description:Propensity score methods are an important tool to help reduce confounding in non-experimental studies and produce more accurate causal effect estimates. Most propensity score methods assume that covariates are measured without error. However, covariates are often measured with error. Recent work has shown that ignoring such error could lead to bias in treatment effect estimates. In this paper, we consider an additional complication: that of differential measurement error across treatment groups, such as can occur if a covariate is measured differently in the treatment and control groups. We propose two flexible Bayesian approaches for handling differential measurement error when estimating average causal effects using propensity score methods. We consider three scenarios: systematic (i.e., a location shift), heteroscedastic (i.e., different variances), and mixed (both systematic and heteroscedastic) measurement errors. We also explore various prior choices (i.e., weakly informative or point mass) on the sensitivity parameters related to the differential measurement error. We present results from simulation studies evaluating the performance of the proposed methods and apply these approaches to an example estimating the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent drug use disorders.

| S-EPMC5391318 | biostudies-literature

Covariate balance in a Bayesian propensity score analysis of beta blocker therapy in heart failure patients.

Project description:Regression adjustment for the propensity score is a statistical method that reduces confounding from measured variables in observational data. A Bayesian propensity score analysis extends this idea by using simultaneous estimation of the propensity scores and the treatment effect. In this article, we conduct an empirical investigation of the performance of Bayesian propensity scores in the context of an observational study of the effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy in heart failure patients. We study the balancing properties of the estimated propensity scores. Traditional Frequentist propensity scores focus attention on balancing covariates that are strongly associated with treatment. In contrast, we demonstrate that Bayesian propensity scores can be used to balance the association between covariates and the outcome. This balancing property has the effect of reducing confounding bias because it reduces the degree to which covariates are outcome risk factors.

| S-EPMC2758880 | biostudies-other

Improving propensity score estimators' robustness to model misspecification using super learner.

Project description:The consistency of propensity score (PS) estimators relies on correct specification of the PS model. The PS is frequently estimated using main-effects logistic regression. However, the underlying model assumptions may not hold. Machine learning methods provide an alternative nonparametric approach to PS estimation. In this simulation study, we evaluated the benefit of using Super Learner (SL) for PS estimation. We created 1,000 simulated data sets (n = 500) under 4 different scenarios characterized by various degrees of deviance from the usual main-term logistic regression model for the true PS. We estimated the average treatment effect using PS matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting. The estimators' performance was evaluated in terms of PS prediction accuracy, covariate balance achieved, bias, standard error, coverage, and mean squared error. All methods exhibited adequate overall balancing properties, but in the case of model misspecification, SL performed better for highly unbalanced variables. The SL-based estimators were associated with the smallest bias in cases of severe model misspecification. Our results suggest that use of SL to estimate the PS can improve covariate balance and reduce bias in a meaningful manner in cases of serious model misspecification for treatment assignment.

| S-EPMC4351345 | biostudies-other

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

Project description:The use of propensity scores to control for pretreatment imbalances on observed variables in non-randomized or observational studies examining the causal effects of treatments or interventions has become widespread over the past decade. For settings with two conditions of interest such as a treatment and a control, inverse probability of treatment weighted estimation with propensity scores estimated via boosted models has been shown in simulation studies to yield causal effect estimates with desirable properties. There are tools (e.g., the twang package in R) and guidance for implementing this method with two treatments. However, there is not such guidance for analyses of three or more treatments. The goals of this paper are twofold: (1) to provide step-by-step guidance for researchers who want to implement propensity score weighting for multiple treatments and (2) to propose the use of generalized boosted models (GBM) for estimation of the necessary propensity score weights. We define the causal quantities that may be of interest to studies of multiple treatments and derive weighted estimators of those quantities. We present a detailed plan for using GBM to estimate propensity scores and using those scores to estimate weights and causal effects. We also provide tools for assessing balance and overlap of pretreatment variables among treatment groups in the context of multiple treatments. A case study examining the effects of three treatment programs for adolescent substance abuse demonstrates the methods.

| S-EPMC3710547 | biostudies-literature

The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation.

Project description:Opt-in surveys are the most widespread method used to study participation in online communities, but produce biased results in the absence of adjustments for non-response. A 2008 survey conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation and United Nations University at Maastricht is the source of a frequently cited statistic that less than 13% of Wikipedia contributors are female. However, the same study suggested that only 39.9% of Wikipedia readers in the US were female - a finding contradicted by a representative survey of American adults by the Pew Research Center conducted less than two months later. Combining these two datasets through an application and extension of a propensity score estimation technique used to model survey non-response bias, we construct revised estimates, contingent on explicit assumptions, for several of the Wikimedia Foundation and United Nations University at Maastricht claims about Wikipedia editors. We estimate that the proportion of female US adult editors was 27.5% higher than the original study reported (22.7%, versus 17.8%), and that the total proportion of female editors was 26.8% higher (16.1%, versus 12.7%).

| S-EPMC3694126 | biostudies-literature

Treatment effect estimation using the propensity score in clinical trials with historical control.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials assessing new treatment effects require a control group to compare the pure treatment effects. However, in clinical trials on regenerative medicine, rare diseases, and intractable diseases, it may be ethically difficult to assign participants to the control group. In recent years, the use of historical control data has attracted attention as a method for supplementing the number of participants in the control group. When combining historical control data with new randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, the assessment of heterogeneity using outcome data is not sufficient. Therefore, several statistical methods that consider participant outcomes and baseline characteristics, including the propensity score (PS) method have been proposed.MethodsWe propose a new method considering "information on whether the data are RCT data or not" in the PS model when combining the RCT and historical control data. The performance of the proposed method in estimating the treatment effect is evaluated using simulation data.ResultsWhen the distribution of covariates is similar between the RCT and historical control data, not much difference in performance is found between the proposed and conventional methods to estimate the treatment effect. On the other hand, when the distribution of covariates is not similar between the two kinds of data, the proposed method shows higher performance.ConclusionsEven when it is not known whether RCT and historical control data are similar, the proposed PS model is useful to estimate the treatment effect appropriately in RCTs using historical control data.

| S-EPMC10882803 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data