An alternative empirical likelihood method in missing response problems and causal inference

Missing responses are common problems in medical, social, and economic studies. When responses are missing at random, a complete case data analysis may result in biases. A popular debias method is inverse probability weighting proposed by Horvitz and Thompson. To improve efficiency, Robins et al. proposed an augmented inverse probability weighting method. The augmented inverse probability weighting estimator has a double‐robustness property and achieves the semiparametric efficiency lower bound when the regression model and propensity score model are both correctly specified. In this paper, we introduce an empirical likelihood‐based estimator as an alternative to Qin and Zhang (2007). Our proposed estimator is also doubly robust and locally efficient. Simulation results show that the proposed estimator has better performance when the propensity score is correctly modeled. Moreover, the proposed method can be applied in the estimation of average treatment effect in observational causal inferences. Finally, we apply our method to an observational study of smoking, using data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions clinical trial. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Should a propensity score model be super? The utility of ensemble procedures for causal adjustment

In investigations of the effect of treatment on outcome, the propensity score is a tool to eliminate imbalance in the distribution of confounding variables between treatment groups. Recent work has suggested that Super Learner, an ensemble method, outperforms logistic regression in nonlinear settings; however, experience with real-data analyses tends to show overfitting of the propensity score model using this approach. We investigated a wide range of simulated settings of varying complexities including simulations based on real data to compare the performances of logistic regression, generalized boosted models, and Super Learner in providing balance and for estimating the average treatment effect via propensity score regression, propensity score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting. We found that Super Learner and logistic regression are comparable in terms of covariate balance, bias, and mean squared error (MSE); however, Super Learner is computationally very expensive thus leaving no clear advantage to the more complex approach. Propensity scores estimated by generalized boosted models were inferior to the other two estimation approaches. We also found that propensity score regression adjustment was superior to either matching or inverse weighting when the form of the dependence on the treatment on the outcome is correctly specified.     

Assessing the performance of the generalized propensity score for estimating the effect of quantitative or continuous exposures on binary outcomes

Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to estimate the effects of treatments and exposures when using observational data. The propensity score was initially developed for use with binary exposures. The generalized propensity score (GPS) is an extension of the propensity score for use with quantitative or continuous exposures (eg, dose or quantity of medication, income, or years of education). We used Monte Carlo simulations to examine the performance of different methods of using the GPS to estimate the effect of continuous exposures on binary outcomes. We examined covariate adjustment using the GPS and weighting using weights based on the inverse of the GPS. We examined both the use of ordinary least squares to estimate the propensity function and the use of the covariate balancing propensity score algorithm. The use of methods based on the GPS was compared with the use of G‐computation. All methods resulted in essentially unbiased estimation of the population dose‐response function. However, GPS‐based weighting tended to result in estimates that displayed greater variability and had higher mean squared error when the magnitude of confounding was strong. Of the methods based on the GPS, covariate adjustment using the GPS tended to result in estimates with lower variability and mean squared error when the magnitude of confounding was strong. We illustrate the application of these methods by estimating the effect of average neighborhood income on the probability of death within 1 year of hospitalization for an acute myocardial infarction.     

Bias associated with using the estimated propensity score as a regression covariate

The use of propensity score methods to adjust for selection bias in observational studies has become increasingly popular in public health and medical research. A substantial portion of studies using propensity score adjustment treat the propensity score as a conventional regression predictor. Through a Monte Carlo simulation study, Austin and colleagues. investigated the bias associated with treatment effect estimation when the propensity score is used as a covariate in nonlinear regression models, such as logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. We show that the bias exists even in a linear regression model when the estimated propensity score is used and derive the explicit form of the bias. We also conduct an extensive simulation study to compare the performance of such covariate adjustment with propensity score stratification, propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighted method, and nonparametric functional estimation using splines. The simulation scenarios are designed to reflect real data analysis practice. Instead of specifying a known parametric propensity score model, we generate the data by considering various degrees of overlap of the covariate distributions between treated and control groups. Propensity score matching excels when the treated group is contained within a larger control pool, while the model‐based adjustment may have an edge when treated and control groups do not have too much overlap. Overall, adjusting for the propensity score through stratification or matching followed by regression or using splines, appears to be a good practical strategy. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On regression adjustment for the propensity score

Propensity scores are widely adopted in observational research because they enable adjustment for high‐dimensional confounders without requiring models for their association with the outcome of interest. The results of statistical analyses based on stratification, matching or inverse weighting by the propensity score are therefore less susceptible to model extrapolation than those based solely on outcome regression models. This is attractive because extrapolation in outcome regression models may be alarming, yet difficult to diagnose, when the exposed and unexposed individuals have very different covariate distributions. Standard regression adjustment for the propensity score forms an alternative to the aforementioned propensity score methods, but the benefits of this are less clear because it still involves modelling the outcome in addition to the propensity score. In this article, we develop novel insights into the properties of this adjustment method. We demonstrate that standard tests of the null hypothesis of no exposure effect (based on robust variance estimators), as well as particular standardised effects obtained from such adjusted regression models, are robust against misspecification of the outcome model when a propensity score model is correctly specified; they are thus not vulnerable to the aforementioned problem of extrapolation. We moreover propose efficient estimators for these standardised effects, which retain a useful causal interpretation even when the propensity score model is misspecified, provided the outcome regression model is correctly specified. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation

In this paper, we compare the robustness properties of a matching estimator with a doubly robust estimator. We describe the robustness properties of matching and subclassification estimators by showing how misspecification of the propensity score model can result in the consistent estimation of an average causal effect. The propensity scores are covariate scores, which are a class of functions that removes bias due to all observed covariates. When matching on a parametric model (e.g., a propensity or a prognostic score), the matching estimator is robust to model misspecifications if the misspecified model belongs to the class of covariate scores. The implication is that there are multiple possibilities for the matching estimator in contrast to the doubly robust estimator in which the researcher has two chances to make reliable inference. In simulations, we compare the finite sample properties of the matching estimator with a simple inverse probability weighting estimator and a doubly robust estimator. For the misspecifications in our study, the mean square error of the matching estimator is smaller than the mean square error of both the simple inverse probability weighting estimator and the doubly robust estimators.     

不同混杂结构下广义倾向性评分法的模拟研究及应用

目的 通过构建存在不同混杂结构的广义倾向性评分(generalized propensity score,GPS)模型和结局模型,探索比较三种GPS估计法:广义倾向性评分-最小二乘法(generalized propensity score-ordinary least squares,GPS-OLS),广义倾向性评分...     

Using Propensity Scores for Causal Inference: Pitfalls and Tips

Methods based on propensity score (PS) have become increasingly popular as a tool for causal inference. A better understanding of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternative analytic approaches can contribute to the optimal choice and use of a specific PS method over other methods. In this article, we provide an accessible overview of causal inference from observational data and two major PS-based methods (matching and inverse probability weighting), focusing on the underlying assumptions and decision-making processes. We then discuss common pitfalls and tips for applying the PS methods to empirical research and compare the conventional multivariable outcome regression and the two alternative PS-based methods (ie, matching and inverse probability weighting) and discuss their similarities and differences. Although we note subtle differences in causal identification assumptions, we highlight that the methods are distinct primarily in terms of the statistical modeling assumptions involved and the target population for which exposure effects are being estimated.Key words: propensity score, matching, inverse probability weighting, target population     

Multiply robust estimation of causal quantile treatment effects

In causal inference, often the interest lies in the estimation of the average causal effect. Other quantities such as the quantile treatment effect may be of interest as well. In this article, we propose a multiply robust method for estimating the marginal quantiles of potential outcomes by achieving mean balance in (a) the propensity score, and (b) the conditional distributions of potential outcomes. An empirical likelihood or entropy measure approach can be utilized for estimation instead of inverse probability weighting, which is known to be sensitive to the misspecification of the propensity score model. Simulation studies are conducted across different scenarios of correctness in both the propensity score models and the outcome models. Both simulation results and theoretical development indicate that our proposed estimator is consistent if any of the models are correctly specified. In the data analysis, we investigate the quantile treatment effect of mothers' smoking status on infants' birthweight.     

基于个体的标准化法--倾向评分加权

倾向评分加权是利用倾向评分值对每个观察单位进行加权调整.由于倾向评分将许多协变量综合为一个变量,因此通过倾向评分加权可以使各混杂变量在两组人群中的分布趋于一致.根据调整后标准人群的不同分为两种加权方法:逆处理概率加权法(IPTW)和标准化死亡比加权法(SMRW).本文实例分析表明,用IPTW和SMRW加权调整后处理组和对照组妇女各混杂变量的分布均趋于一致,两种方法调整后的效应估计基本相同.本文介绍倾向评分加权法的基本原理、具体方法,并结合实例探讨了其在流行病学中的应用.     

Comparing the performance of propensity score methods in healthcare database studies with rare outcomes

Nonrandomized studies of treatments from electronic healthcare databases are critical for producing the evidence necessary to making informed treatment decisions, but often rely on comparing rates of events observed in a small number of patients. In addition, studies constructed from electronic healthcare databases, for example, administrative claims data, often adjust for many, possibly hundreds, of potential confounders. Despite the importance of maximizing efficiency when there are many confounders and few observed outcome events, there has been relatively little research on the relative performance of different propensity score methods in this context. In this paper, we compare a wide variety of propensity‐based estimators of the marginal relative risk. In contrast to prior research that has focused on specific statistical methods in isolation of other analytic choices, we instead consider a method to be defined by the complete multistep process from propensity score modeling to final treatment effect estimation. Propensity score model estimation methods considered include ordinary logistic regression, Bayesian logistic regression, lasso, and boosted regression trees. Methods for utilizing the propensity score include pair matching, full matching, decile strata, fine strata, regression adjustment using one or two nonlinear splines, inverse propensity weighting, and matching weights. We evaluate methods via a ‘plasmode’ simulation study, which creates simulated datasets on the basis of a real cohort study of two treatments constructed from administrative claims data. Our results suggest that regression adjustment and matching weights, regardless of the propensity score model estimation method, provide lower bias and mean squared error in the context of rare binary outcomes. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Optimally combining propensity score subclasses

Propensity score methods, such as subclassification, are a common approach to control for confounding when estimating causal effects in non‐randomized studies. Propensity score subclassification groups individuals into subclasses based on their propensity score values. Effect estimates are obtained within each subclass and then combined by weighting by the proportion of observations in each subclass. Combining subclass‐specific estimates by weighting by the inverse variance is a promising alternative approach; a similar strategy is used in meta‐analysis for its efficiency. We use simulation to compare performance of each of the two methods while varying (i) the number of subclasses, (ii) extent of propensity score overlap between the treatment and control groups (i.e., positivity), (iii) incorporation of survey weighting, and (iv) presence of heterogeneous treatment effects across subclasses. Both methods perform well in the absence of positivity violations and with a constant treatment effect with weighting by the inverse variance performing slightly better. Weighting by the proportion in subclass performs better in the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects across subclasses. We apply these methods to an illustrative example estimating the effect of living in a disadvantaged neighborhood on risk of past‐year anxiety and depressive disorders among U.S. urban adolescents. This example entails practical positivity violations but no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity. In this case, weighting by the inverse variance when combining across propensity score subclasses results in more efficient estimates that ultimately change inference. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regression-adjusted matching and double-robust methods for estimating average treatment effects in health economic evaluation

Regression, propensity score (PS) and double-robust (DR) methods can reduce selection bias when estimating average treatment effects (ATEs). Economic evaluations of health care interventions exemplify complex data structures, in that the covariate–endpoint relationships tend to be highly non-linear, with highly skewed cost and health outcome endpoints. When either the regression or PS model is correct, DR methods can provide unbiased, efficient estimates of ATEs, but generally the specification of both models is unknown. Regression-adjusted matching can also protect against bias from model misspecification, but has not been compared to DR methods. This paper compares regression-adjusted matching to selected DR methods (weighted regression and augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting) as well as to regression and PS methods for addressing selection bias in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). We contrast the methods in a CEA of a pharmaceutical intervention, where there are extreme estimated PSs, hence unstable inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weights. The case study motivates a simulation which considers settings with functional form misspecification in the PS and endpoint regression models (e.g. cost model with log instead of identity link), stable and unstable PS weights. We find that in the realistic setting of unstable IPT weights and misspecifications to the PS and regression models, regression-adjusted matching reports less bias than DR methods. We conclude that regression-adjusted matching is a relatively robust method for estimating ATEs in applications with complex data structures exemplified by CEA.     

Flexible regression approach to propensity score analysis and its relationship with matching and weighting

In propensity score analysis, the frequently used regression adjustment involves regressing the outcome on the estimated propensity score and treatment indicator. This approach can be highly efficient when model assumptions are valid, but can lead to biased results when the assumptions are violated. We extend the simple regression adjustment to a varying coefficient regression model that allows for nonlinear association between outcome and propensity score. We discuss its connection with some propensity score matching and weighting methods, and show that the proposed analytical framework can shed light on the intrinsic connection among some mainstream propensity score approaches (stratification, regression, kernel matching, and inverse probability weighting) and handle commonly used causal estimands. We derive analytic point and variance estimators that properly take into account the sampling variability in the estimated propensity score. Extensive simulations show that the proposed approach possesses desired finite sample properties and demonstrates competitive performance in comparison with other methods estimating the same causal estimand. The proposed methodology is illustrated with a study on right heart catheterization.     

The performance of different propensity‐score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies

Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to estimate the effects of treatments on health outcomes using observational data. There are four methods for using the propensity score to estimate treatment effects: covariate adjustment using the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, propensity‐score matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score. When outcomes are binary, the effect of treatment on the outcome can be described using odds ratios, relative risks, risk differences, or the number needed to treat. Several clinical commentators suggested that risk differences and numbers needed to treat are more meaningful for clinical decision making than are odds ratios or relative risks. However, there is a paucity of information about the relative performance of the different propensity‐score methods for estimating risk differences. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine this issue. We examined bias, variance estimation, coverage of confidence intervals, mean‐squared error (MSE), and type I error rates. A doubly robust version of IPTW had superior performance compared with the other propensity‐score methods. It resulted in unbiased estimation of risk differences, treatment effects with the lowest standard errors, confidence intervals with the correct coverage rates, and correct type I error rates. Stratification, matching on the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score resulted in minor to modest bias in estimating risk differences. Estimators based on IPTW had lower MSE compared with other propensity‐score methods. Differences between IPTW and propensity‐score matching may reflect that these two methods estimate the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect for the treated, respectively. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Generalizing Observational Study Results: Applying Propensity Score Methods to Complex Surveys

ObjectiveTo provide a tutorial for using propensity score methods with complex survey data.Data SourcesSimulated data and the 2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.Study DesignUsing simulation, we compared the following methods for estimating the treatment effect: a naïve estimate (ignoring both survey weights and propensity scores), survey weighting, propensity score methods (nearest neighbor matching, weighting, and subclassification), and propensity score methods in combination with survey weighting. Methods are compared in terms of bias and 95 percent confidence interval coverage. In Example 2, we used these methods to estimate the effect on health care spending of having a generalist versus a specialist as a usual source of care.Principal FindingsIn general, combining a propensity score method and survey weighting is necessary to achieve unbiased treatment effect estimates that are generalizable to the original survey target population.ConclusionsPropensity score methods are an essential tool for addressing confounding in observational studies. Ignoring survey weights may lead to results that are not generalizable to the survey target population. This paper clarifies the appropriate inferences for different propensity score methods and suggests guidelines for selecting an appropriate propensity score method based on a researcher’s goal.     

Propensity score weighting for a continuous exposure with multilevel data

Propensity score methods (e.g., matching, weighting, subclassification) provide a statistical approach for balancing dissimilar exposure groups on baseline covariates. These methods were developed in the context of data with no hierarchical structure or clustering. Yet in many applications the data have a clustered structure that is of substantive importance, such as when individuals are nested within healthcare providers or within schools. Recent work has extended propensity score methods to a multilevel setting, primarily focusing on binary exposures. In this paper, we focus on propensity score weighting for a continuous, rather than binary, exposure in a multilevel setting. Using simulations, we compare several specifications of the propensity score: a random effects model, a fixed effects model, and a single-level model. Additionally, our simulations compare the performance of marginal versus cluster-mean stabilized propensity score weights. In our results, regression specifications that accounted for the multilevel structure reduced bias, particularly when cluster-level confounders were omitted. Furthermore, cluster mean weights outperformed marginal weights.     

The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios

Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to reduce or minimize the effects of confounding when estimating the effects of treatments, exposures, or interventions when using observational or non‐randomized data. Under the assumption of no unmeasured confounders, previous research has shown that propensity score methods allow for unbiased estimation of linear treatment effects (e.g., differences in means or proportions). However, in biomedical research, time‐to‐event outcomes occur frequently. There is a paucity of research into the performance of different propensity score methods for estimating the effect of treatment on time‐to‐event outcomes. Furthermore, propensity score methods allow for the estimation of marginal or population‐average treatment effects. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to examine the performance of propensity score matching (1:1 greedy nearest‐neighbor matching within propensity score calipers), stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score to estimate marginal hazard ratios. We found that both propensity score matching and IPTW using the propensity score allow for the estimation of marginal hazard ratios with minimal bias. Of these two approaches, IPTW using the propensity score resulted in estimates with lower mean squared error when estimating the effect of treatment in the treated. Stratification on the propensity score and covariate adjustment using the propensity score result in biased estimation of both marginal and conditional hazard ratios. Applied researchers are encouraged to use propensity score matching and IPTW using the propensity score when estimating the relative effect of treatment on time‐to‐event outcomes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Statistical inference for missing data mechanisms

In the literature of statistical analysis with missing data there is a significant gap in statistical inference for missing data mechanisms especially for nonmonotone missing data, which has essentially restricted the use of the estimation methods which require estimating the missing data mechanisms. For example, the inverse probability weighting methods (Horvitz & Thompson, 1952; Little & Rubin, 2002), including the popular augmented inverse probability weighting (Robins et al, 1994), depend on sufficient models for the missing data mechanisms to reduce estimation bias while improving estimation efficiency. This research proposes a semiparametric likelihood method for estimating missing data mechanisms where an EM algorithm with closed form expressions for both E-step and M-step is used in evaluating the estimate (Zhao et al, 2009; Zhao, 2020). The asymptotic variance of the proposed estimator is estimated from the profile score function. The methods are general and robust. Simulation studies in various missing data settings are performed to examine the finite sample performance of the proposed method. Finally, we analysis the missing data mechanism of Duke cardiac catheterization coronary artery disease diagnostic data to illustrate the method.     

Estimation of average treatment effects among multiple treatment groups by using an ensemble approach

In observational studies, generalized propensity score (GPS)–based statistical methods, such as inverse probability weighting (IPW) and doubly robust (DR) method, have been proposed to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) among multiple treatment groups. In this article, we investigate the GPS-based statistical methods to estimate treatment effects from two aspects. The first aspect of our investigation is to obtain an optimal GPS estimation method among four competing GPS estimation methods by using a rank aggregation approach. We further examine whether the optimal GPS-based IPW and DR methods would improve the performance for estimating ATE. It is well known that the DR method is consistent if either the GPS or the outcome models are correctly specified. The second aspect of our investigation is to examine whether the DR method could be improved if we ensemble outcome models. To that end, bootstrap method and rank aggregation method are used to obtain the ensemble optimal outcome model from several competing outcome models, and the resulting outcome model is incorporated into the DR method, resulting in an ensemble DR (enDR) method. Extensive simulation results indicate that the enDR method provides the best performance in estimating the ATE regardless of the method used for estimating GPS. We illustrate our methods using the MarketScan healthcare insurance claims database to examine the treatment effects among three different bones and substitutes used for spinal fusion surgeries. We draw conclusions based on the estimates from the enDR method coupled with the optimal GPS estimation method.