Using a monotone single-index model to stabilize the propensity score in missing data problems and causal inference

The augmented inverse weighting method is one of the most popular methods for estimating the mean of the response in causal inference and missing data problems. An important component of this method is the propensity score. Popular parametric models for the propensity score include the logistic, probit, and complementary log-log models. A common feature of these models is that the propensity score is a monotonic function of a linear combination of the explanatory variables. To avoid the need to choose a model, we model the propensity score via a semiparametric single-index model, in which the score is an unknown monotonic nondecreasing function of the given single index. Under this new model, the augmented inverse weighting estimator (AIWE) of the mean of the response is asymptotically linear, semiparametrically efficient, and more robust than existing estimators. Moreover, we have made a surprising observation. The inverse probability weighting and AIWEs based on a correctly specified parametric model may have worse performance than their counterparts based on a nonparametric model. A heuristic explanation of this phenomenon is provided. A real-data example is used to illustrate the proposed methods.     

Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis

Propensity score methods are used to reduce the effects of observed confounding when using observational data to estimate the effects of treatments or exposures. A popular method of using the propensity score is inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). When using this method, a weight is calculated for each subject that is equal to the inverse of the probability of receiving the treatment that was actually received. These weights are then incorporated into the analyses to minimize the effects of observed confounding. Previous research has found that these methods result in unbiased estimation when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes. However, conventional methods of variance estimation were shown to result in biased estimates of standard error. In this study, we conducted an extensive set of Monte Carlo simulations to examine different methods of variance estimation when using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the effect of treatment. We considered three variance estimation methods: (i) a naïve model‐based variance estimator; (ii) a robust sandwich‐type variance estimator; and (iii) a bootstrap variance estimator. We considered estimation of both the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect in the treated. We found that the use of a bootstrap estimator resulted in approximately correct estimates of standard errors and confidence intervals with the correct coverage rates. The other estimators resulted in biased estimates of standard errors and confidence intervals with incorrect coverage rates. Our simulations were informed by a case study examining the effect of statin prescribing on mortality. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Variance estimation for stratified propensity score estimators

Propensity score methods are increasingly used to estimate the effect of a treatment or exposure on an outcome in non-randomised studies. We focus on one such method, stratification on the propensity score, comparing it with the method of inverse-probability weighting by the propensity score. The propensity score--the conditional probability of receiving the treatment given observed covariates--is usually an unknown probability estimated from the data. Estimators for the variance of treatment effect estimates typically used in practice, however, do not take into account that the propensity score itself has been estimated from the data. By deriving the asymptotic marginal variance of the stratified estimate of treatment effect, correctly taking into account the estimation of the propensity score, we show that routinely used variance estimators are likely to produce confidence intervals that are too conservative when the propensity score model includes variables that predict (cause) the outcome, but only weakly predict the treatment. In contrast, a comparison with the analogous marginal variance for the inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimator shows that routinely used variance estimators for the IPW estimator are likely to produce confidence intervals that are almost always too conservative. Because exact calculation of the asymptotic marginal variance is likely to be complex, particularly for the stratified estimator, we suggest that bootstrap estimates of variance should be used in practice.     

Variance reduction in randomised trials by inverse probability weighting using the propensity score

In individually randomised controlled trials, adjustment for baseline characteristics is often undertaken to increase precision of the treatment effect estimate. This is usually performed using covariate adjustment in outcome regression models. An alternative method of adjustment is to use inverse probability‐of‐treatment weighting (IPTW), on the basis of estimated propensity scores. We calculate the large‐sample marginal variance of IPTW estimators of the mean difference for continuous outcomes, and risk difference, risk ratio or odds ratio for binary outcomes. We show that IPTW adjustment always increases the precision of the treatment effect estimate. For continuous outcomes, we demonstrate that the IPTW estimator has the same large‐sample marginal variance as the standard analysis of covariance estimator. However, ignoring the estimation of the propensity score in the calculation of the variance leads to the erroneous conclusion that the IPTW treatment effect estimator has the same variance as an unadjusted estimator; thus, it is important to use a variance estimator that correctly takes into account the estimation of the propensity score. The IPTW approach has particular advantages when estimating risk differences or risk ratios. In this case, non‐convergence of covariate‐adjusted outcome regression models frequently occurs. Such problems can be circumvented by using the IPTW adjustment approach. © 2013 The authors. Statistics in Medicine published by 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.     

Best linear inverse probability weighted estimation for two-phase designs and missing covariate regression

The inverse probability weighted estimator is often applied to two-phase designs and regression with missing covariates. Inverse probability weighted estimators typically are less efficient than likelihood-based estimators but, in general, are more robust against model misspecification. In this paper, we propose a best linear inverse probability weighted estimator for two-phase designs and missing covariate regression. Our proposed estimator is the projection of the SIPW onto the orthogonal complement of the score space based on a working regression model of the observed covariate data. The efficiency gain is from the use of the association between the outcome variable and the available covariates, which is the working regression model. One advantage of the proposed estimator is that there is no need to calculate the augmented term of the augmented weighted estimator. The estimator can be applied to general missing data problems or two-phase design studies in which the second phase data are obtained in a subcohort. The method can also be applied to secondary trait case-control genetic association studies. The asymptotic distribution is derived, and the finite sample performance of the proposed estimator is examined via extensive simulation studies. The methods are applied to a bladder cancer case-control study.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

Propensity score and doubly robust methods for estimating the effect of treatment on censored cost

The estimation of treatment effects on medical costs is complicated by the need to account for informative censoring, skewness, and the effects of confounders. Because medical costs are often collected from observational claims data, we investigate propensity score (PS) methods such as covariate adjustment, stratification, and inverse probability weighting taking into account informative censoring of the cost outcome. We compare these more commonly used methods with doubly robust (DR) estimation. We then use a machine learning approach called super learner (SL) to choose among conventional cost models to estimate regression parameters in the DR approach and to choose among various model specifications for PS estimation. Our simulation studies show that when the PS model is correctly specified, weighting and DR perform well. When the PS model is misspecified, the combined approach of DR with SL can still provide unbiased estimates. SL is especially useful when the underlying cost distribution comes from a mixture of different distributions or when the true PS model is unknown. We apply these approaches to a cost analysis of two bladder cancer treatments, cystectomy versus bladder preservation therapy, using SEER‐Medicare data. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Two‐step estimation in ratio‐of‐mediator‐probability weighted causal mediation analysis

This study investigates appropriate estimation of estimator variability in the context of causal mediation analysis that employs propensity score‐based weighting. Such an analysis decomposes the total effect of a treatment on the outcome into an indirect effect transmitted through a focal mediator and a direct effect bypassing the mediator. Ratio‐of‐mediator‐probability weighting estimates these causal effects by adjusting for the confounding impact of a large number of pretreatment covariates through propensity score‐based weighting. In step 1, a propensity score model is estimated. In step 2, the causal effects of interest are estimated using weights derived from the prior step's regression coefficient estimates. Statistical inferences obtained from this 2‐step estimation procedure are potentially problematic if the estimated standard errors of the causal effect estimates do not reflect the sampling uncertainty in the estimation of the weights. This study extends to ratio‐of‐mediator‐probability weighting analysis a solution to the 2‐step estimation problem by stacking the score functions from both steps. We derive the asymptotic variance‐covariance matrix for the indirect effect and direct effect 2‐step estimators, provide simulation results, and illustrate with an application study. Our simulation results indicate that the sampling uncertainty in the estimated weights should not be ignored. The standard error estimation using the stacking procedure offers a viable alternative to bootstrap standard error estimation. We discuss broad implications of this approach for causal analysis involving propensity score‐based weighting.     

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.     

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.     

Doubly robust generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data

A popular method for analysing repeated‐measures data is generalized estimating equations (GEE). When response data are missing at random (MAR), two modifications of GEE use inverse‐probability weighting and imputation. The weighted GEE (WGEE) method involves weighting observations by their inverse probability of being observed, according to some assumed missingness model. Imputation methods involve filling in missing observations with values predicted by an assumed imputation model. WGEE are consistent when the data are MAR and the dropout model is correctly specified. Imputation methods are consistent when the data are MAR and the imputation model is correctly specified. Recently, doubly robust (DR) methods have been developed. These involve both a model for probability of missingness and an imputation model for the expectation of each missing observation, and are consistent when either is correct. We describe DR GEE, and illustrate their use on simulated data. We also analyse the INITIO randomized clinical trial of HIV therapy allowing for MAR dropout. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The use of propensity score methods with survival or time‐to‐event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments

Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. In medical and epidemiological studies, outcomes are frequently time‐to‐event in nature. Propensity‐score methods are often applied incorrectly when estimating the effect of treatment on time‐to‐event outcomes. This article describes how two different propensity score methods (matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting) can be used to estimate the measures of effect that are frequently reported in randomized controlled trials: (i) marginal survival curves, which describe survival in the population if all subjects were treated or if all subjects were untreated; and (ii) marginal hazard ratios. The use of these propensity score methods allows one to replicate the measures of effect that are commonly reported in randomized controlled trials with time‐to‐event outcomes: both absolute and relative reductions in the probability of an event occurring can be determined. We also provide guidance on variable selection for the propensity score model, highlight methods for assessing the balance of baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects, and describe the implementation of a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of unmeasured confounding variables on the estimated treatment effect when outcomes are time‐to‐event in nature. The methods in the paper are illustrated by estimating the effect of discharge statin prescribing on the risk of death in a sample of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. In this tutorial article, we describe and illustrate all the steps necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the effect of treatment on time‐to‐event outcomes. © 2013 The authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On variance estimate for covariate adjustment by propensity score analysis

Propensity score (PS) methods have been used extensively to adjust for confounding factors in the statistical analysis of observational data in comparative effectiveness research. There are four major PS‐based adjustment approaches: PS matching, PS stratification, covariate adjustment by PS, and PS‐based inverse probability weighting. Though covariate adjustment by PS is one of the most frequently used PS‐based methods in clinical research, the conventional variance estimation of the treatment effects estimate under covariate adjustment by PS is biased. As Stampf et al. have shown, this bias in variance estimation is likely to lead to invalid statistical inference and could result in erroneous public health conclusions (e.g., food and drug safety and adverse events surveillance). To address this issue, we propose a two‐stage analytic procedure to develop a valid variance estimator for the covariate adjustment by PS analysis strategy. We also carry out a simple empirical bootstrap resampling scheme. Both proposed procedures are implemented in an R function for public use. Extensive simulation results demonstrate the bias in the conventional variance estimator and show that both proposed variance estimators offer valid estimates for the true variance, and they are robust to complex confounding structures. The proposed methods are illustrated for a post‐surgery pain study. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Doubly robust estimation of the weighted average treatment effect for a target population

The weighted average treatment effect is a causal measure for the comparison of interventions in a specific target population, which may be different from the population where data are sampled from. For instance, when the goal is to introduce a new treatment to a target population, the question is what efficacy (or effectiveness) can be gained by switching patients from a standard of care (control) to this new treatment, for which the average treatment effect for the control estimand can be applied. In this paper, we propose two estimators based on augmented inverse probability weighting to estimate the weighted average treatment effect for a well-defined target population (ie, there exists a predefined target function of covariates that characterizes the population of interest, for example, a function of age to focus on elderly diabetic patients using samples from the US population). The first proposed estimator is doubly robust if the target function is known or can be correctly specified. The second proposed estimator is doubly robust if the target function has a linear dependence on the propensity score, which can be used to estimate the average treatment effect for the treated and the average treatment effect for the control. We demonstrate the properties of the proposed estimators through theoretical proof and simulation studies. We also apply our proposed methods in a comparison of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists therapy and insulin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes, using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink data.     

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.