On estimating average effects for multiple treatment groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose to estimate average exposure (or treatment) effects from observational data for multiple exposure groups by fitting an approximation of the marginal sample distribution of the response variable in each exposure group to the data. The marginal sample distribution is a function of the true distribution of the response variable in the population and the assignment rule governing the allocation of the subjects to different exposure groups. The assignment rule can depend on the response variable in addition to measured covariates, and hence the method is appropriate even when the assumption of ignorable treatment assignment is not justified. We estimate the exposure effects are estimated based on the population expectation (PE) of the outcome variable. We compare the PE approach with an instrumental variable method and with several other methods including propensity score based approaches that assume ignorable assignment mechanisms. We evaluate the robustness of the PE method under model misspecifications and illustrate it using data from a study of the impact of soy consumption on urinary concentrations of estrogen and estrogen metabolites in Asian American women. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".