Search

Propensity score analysis is a common approach to addressing confounding in nonrandomized studies. Its implementation, however, requires important assumptions (e.g. positivity). The disease risk score (DRS) is an alternative confounding score that can relax some of these assumptions. Like the propensity score, the DRS summarizes multiple confounders into a single score, on which conditioning by matching allows the estimation of causal effects. However, matching relies on arbitrary choices for pruning out data (e.g. matching ratio, algorithm, and caliper width) and may be computationally demanding. Alternatively, weighting methods, common in propensity score analysis, are easy to implement and may entail fewer choices, yet none have been developed for the DRS. Here we present 2 weighting approaches: One derives directly from inverse probability weighting; the other, named target distribution weighting , relates to importance sampling. We empirically show that inverse probability weighting and target distribution weighting display performance comparable to matching techniques in terms of bias but outperform them in terms of efficiency (mean squared error) and computational speed (up to >870 times faster in an illustrative study). We illustrate implementation of the methods in 2 case studies where we investigate placebo treatments for multiple sclerosis and administration of aspirin in stroke patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we advocate and expand upon a previously described monitoring strategy for efficient and robust estimation of disease prevalence and case numbers within closed and enumerated populations such as schools, workplaces, or retirement communities. The proposed design relies largely on voluntary testing, which is notoriously biased (e.g. in the case of coronavirus disease 2019) due to nonrepresentative sampling. The approach yields unbiased and comparatively precise estimates with no assumptions about factors underlying selection of individuals for voluntary testing, building on the strength of what can be a small random sampling component. This component enables the use of a recently proposed "anchor stream" estimator, a well-calibrated alternative to classical capture-recapture (CRC) estimators based on 2 data streams. We show that this estimator is equivalent to a direct standardization based on "capture," that is, selection (or not) by the voluntary testing program, made possible by means of a key parameter identified by design. This equivalency simultaneously allows for novel 2-stream CRC-like estimation of general mean values (e.g. means of continuous variables like antibody levels or biomarkers). For inference, we propose adaptations of Bayesian credible intervals when estimating case counts and bootstrapping when estimating means of continuous variables. We use simulations to demonstrate significant precision benefits relative to random sampling alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlike parametric regression, machine learning (ML) methods do not generally require precise knowledge of the true data-generating mechanisms. As such, numerous authors have advocated for ML methods to estimate causal effects. Unfortunately, ML algorithms can perform worse than parametric regression. We demonstrate the performance of ML-based singly and doubly robust estimators. We used 100 Monte Carlo samples with sample sizes of 200, 1,200, and 5,000 to investigate bias and confidence-interval coverage under several scenarios. In a simple confounding scenario, confounders were related to the treatment and the outcome via parametric models. In a complex confounding scenario, the simple confounders were transformed to induce complicated nonlinear relationships. In the simple scenario, when ML algorithms were used, double-robust estimators were superior to singly robust estimators. In the complex scenario, single-robust estimators with ML algorithms were at least as biased as estimators using misspecified parametric models. Doubly robust estimators were less biased, but coverage was well below nominal. The use of sample splitting, inclusion of confounder interactions, reliance on a richly specified ML algorithm, and use of doubly robust estimators was the only explored approach that yielded negligible bias and nominal coverage. Our results suggest that ML-based singly robust methods should be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inverse probability weighting (IPW), a well-established method of controlling for confounding in observational studies with binary exposures, has been extended to analyses with continuous exposures. Methods developed for continuous exposures may not apply when the exposure is quasicontinuous because of irregular exposure distributions that violate key assumptions. We used simulations and cluster-randomized clinical trial data to assess 4 approaches developed for continuous exposures—ordinary least squares (OLS), covariate balancing generalized propensity scores (CBGPS), nonparametric covariate balancing generalized propensity scores (npCBGPS), and quantile binning (QB)—and a novel method, a cumulative probability model (CPM), in quasicontinuous exposure settings. We compared IPW stability, covariate balance, bias, mean squared error, and standard error estimation across 3,000 simulations with 6 different quasicontinuous exposures, varying in skewness and granularity. In general, CBGPS and npCBGPS resulted in excellent covariate balance, and npCBGPS was the least biased but the most variable. The QB and CPM approaches had the lowest mean squared error, particularly with marginally skewed exposures. We then successfully applied the IPW approaches, together with missing-data techniques, to assess how session attendance (out of a possible 15) in a partners-based clustered intervention among pregnant couples living with human immunodeficiency virus in Mozambique (2017–2022) influenced postpartum contraceptive uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]