RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Two propensity score (PS) based balancing covariate methods, the overlap weighting method (OW) and the fine stratification method (FS), produce superb covariate balance. OW has been compared with various weighting methods while FS has been compared with the traditional stratification method and various matching methods. However, no study has yet compared OW and FS. In addition, OW has not yet been evaluated in large claims data with low prevalence exposure and with low frequency outcomes, a context in which optimal use of balancing methods is critical. In the study, we aimed to compare OW and FS using real-world data and simulations with low prevalence exposure and with low frequency outcomes. METHODS: We used the Texas State Medicaid claims data on adult beneficiaries with diabetes in 2012 as an empirical example (N = 42,628). Based on its real-world research question, we estimated an average treatment effect of health center vs. non-health center attendance in the total population. We also performed simulations to evaluate their relative performance. To preserve associations between covariates, we used the plasmode approach to simulate outcomes and/or exposures with N = 4,000. We simulated both homogeneous and heterogeneous treatment effects with various outcome risks (1-30% or observed: 27.75%) and/or exposure prevalence (2.5-30% or observed:10.55%). We used a weighted generalized linear model to estimate the exposure effect and the cluster-robust standard error (SE) method to estimate its SE. RESULTS: In the empirical example, we found that OW had smaller standardized mean differences in all covariates (range: OW: 0.0-0.02 vs. FS: 0.22-3.26) and Mahalanobis balance distance (MB) (< 0.001 vs. > 0.049) than FS. In simulations, OW also achieved smaller MB (homogeneity: <0.04 vs. > 0.04; heterogeneity: 0.0-0.11 vs. 0.07-0.29), relative bias (homogeneity: 4.04-56.20 vs. 20-61.63; heterogeneity: 7.85-57.6 vs. 15.0-60.4), square root of mean squared error (homogeneity: 0.332-1.308 vs. 0.385-1.365; heterogeneity: 0.263-0.526 vs 0.313-0.620), and coverage probability (homogeneity: 0.0-80.4% vs. 0.0-69.8%; heterogeneity: 0.0-97.6% vs. 0.0-92.8%), than FS, in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that OW can yield nearly perfect covariate balance and therefore enhance the accuracy of average treatment effect estimation in the total population.
Asunto(s)
Puntaje de Propensión , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Texas/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Medicaid/estadística & datos numéricos , Simulación por Computador , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being given to assessing treatment effect heterogeneity among individuals belonging to qualitatively different latent subgroups. Inference routinely proceeds by first partitioning the individuals into subgroups, then estimating the subgroup-specific average treatment effects. However, because the subgroups are only latently associated with the observed variables, the actual individual subgroup memberships are rarely known with certainty in practice and thus have to be imputed. Ignoring the uncertainty in the imputed memberships precludes misclassification errors, potentially leading to biased results and incorrect conclusions. METHODS: We propose a strategy for assessing the sensitivity of inference to classification uncertainty when using such classify-analyze approaches for subgroup effect analyses. We exploit each individual's typically nonzero predictive or posterior subgroup membership probabilities to gauge the stability of the resultant subgroup-specific average causal effects estimates over different, carefully selected subsets of the individuals. Because the membership probabilities are subject to sampling variability, we propose Monte Carlo confidence intervals that explicitly acknowledge the imprecision in the estimated subgroup memberships via perturbations using a parametric bootstrap. The proposal is widely applicable and avoids stringent causal or structural assumptions that existing bias-adjustment or bias-correction methods rely on. RESULTS: Using two different publicly available real-world datasets, we illustrate how the proposed strategy supplements existing latent subgroup effect analyses to shed light on the potential impact of classification uncertainty on inference. First, individuals are partitioned into latent subgroups based on their medical and health history. Then within each fixed latent subgroup, the average treatment effect is assessed using an augmented inverse propensity score weighted estimator. Finally, utilizing the proposed sensitivity analysis reveals different subgroup-specific effects that are mostly insensitive to potential misclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed sensitivity analysis is straightforward to implement, provides both graphical and numerical summaries, and readily permits assessing the sensitivity of any machine learning-based causal effect estimator to classification uncertainty. We recommend making such sensitivity analyses more routine in latent subgroup effect analyses.
Asunto(s)
Incertidumbre , Sesgo , Causalidad , Humanos , Método de Montecarlo , Puntaje de PropensiónRESUMEN
One of the main limitations of causal inference methods is that they rely on the assumption that all variables are measured without error. A popular approach for handling measurement error is simulation-extrapolation (SIMEX). However, its use for estimating causal effects have been examined only in the context of an additive, non-differential, and homoscedastic classical measurement error structure. In this article we extend the SIMEX methodology, in the context of a mean reverting measurement error structure, to a doubly robust estimator of the average treatment effect when a single covariate is measured with error but the outcome and treatment and treatment indicator are not. Throughout this article we assume that an independent validation sample is available. Simulation studies suggest that our method performs better than a naive approach that simply uses the covariate measured with error.