MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2547225625 · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000000586

An R Package for G-estimation of Structural Nested Mean Models

2016· letter· en· W2547225625 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Michael P. Wallace, Erica E. M. Moodie, David A. Stephens

Notice bibliographique

RevueEpidemiology · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMathematics
ThématiqueAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Mots-clésConfoundingNested case-control studyStatisticsEstimationStructural equation modelingNested set modelR packageEconometricsComputer scienceGeneralized estimating equationRandom effects modelMathematicsMedicineConfidence intervalData miningMeta-analysisInternal medicineEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: Structural nested mean models are a useful tool when estimating the effect of time-varying treatments, a challenge made more difficult by the presence of treatment-dependent confounders. We consider the situation where data are measured on, and a treatment assigned to, subjects at a number of distinct time points (or stages). We wish to identify the effect of treatment at each stage on a final (continuous) outcome, when all time-varying confounders are correctly measured, with each treatment’s effect characterized by a structural nested mean model. For example, consider a study of the effect of activity level (the treatment) on blood pressure (the outcome), with data collected by repeated questionnaires over time. We might expect activity level to be associated with blood pressure, but other factors such as age or body mass index may interact with treatment, potentially obfuscating its effect. A structural nested mean model to model the treatment effect may take such interactions into account. G-estimation1 is an estimating equation-based approach used to estimate the parameters of structural nested mean models (but has wider applications). Despite theoretical advantages over alternative approaches,2–5 it has seen relatively little use, thanks to its typically strongly theoretical presentation and challenging implementation. We have therefore derived simplified theory, reducing G-estimation to straightforward matrix equations, and produced an accompanying R package DTRreg.6 Theoretical details are included as Supplementary Material (https://links.lww.com/EDE/B132). We demonstrate G-estimation and DTRreg with a simulation study; a real data analysis is included in the Supplementary Material (https://links.lww.com/EDE/B133). We consider a three-stage example with binary treatments at stages 1 and 3, continuous treatment at stage 2, and treatment–covariate interaction: Stage 1. Covariate: ; treatment: ; Stage 2. Covariate: ; treatment: ; Stage 3. Covariate: ; treatment: ; and Outcome: where for simplicity, we set all parameters equal to 1. Treatment effects are therefore characterized by structural nested mean models , and we seek estimates for and , so that the effect of assigning a patient with covariate the treatment aj is estimated by . In addition, at each stage, we consider a treatment-free model, characterizing the expected outcome assuming no treatment (aj = 0) at that and all subsequent stages (denoted Gj): Stage 1: ; Stage 2: ; and Stage 3: . Our final component is the treatment model: the expected value of treatment given prior information. At stages 1 and 3 (binary treatment), we estimate this via logistic regression, at stage 2 (continuous treatment), we use linear regression. G-estimation for such an analysis boasts the double-robustness property: our structural nested mean model parameter estimators at each stage are consistent if at least one of the treatment or treatment-free models is correctly specified. To demonstrate, we conduct our analysis with a misspecified treatment-free model at stage 3, a misspecified treatment model at stage 2, and both models misspecified at stage 1. Misspecification is achieved by omitting all covariates from the affected models. Stage 1 (both misspecified). Treatment: (fit by logistic regression) Treatment-free: ; Stage 2 (treatment model misspecified). Treatment: (fit by linear regression) Treatment-free: ; Stage 3 (treatment-free model misspecified). Treatment: (fit by logistic regression) Treatment-free: . We can estimate the structural nested mean model parameters at each stage in a step-by-step fashion, either manually through matrix equations (eAppendix; https://links.lww.com/EDE/B134), or through our R package (Figure). Analyzing 1,000 datasets of size n = 1,000, we obtain mean estimates , , and at stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. As expected, the estimators appear consistent when either the treatment or treatment-free model was correctly specified (stages 2 and 3), but not when both were misspecified (stage 1). Inference may be pursued by either the bootstrap or sandwich-based approaches.FIGURE: G-estimation using our R command (for full details see eAppendix [https://links.lww.com/EDE/B134]; note that “blip” is an alternate name for our structural nested mean model).Structural nested mean models are a valuable, but underused, alternative to more established modeling techniques, with G-estimation one approach for parameter estimation within this framework. Through simplified theory, or our computational routine, G-estimation may be implemented with ease, and we encourage practitioners to consider its use in future analyses. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for allowing access to data from the Honolulu Heart Program. Michael P. Wallace Erica E. M. Moodie Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada [email protected] David A. Stephens Department of Mathematics and Statistics McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,687
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,341
Tête enseignante GPT0,487
Écart entre enseignants0,146 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEpidemiologyMême sujetAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesTravaux en français237 207