Impact of mis‐specification of the treatment model on estimates from a marginal structural model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) estimation for marginal structural models (MSMs) requires the specification of a nuisance model describing the conditional relationship between treatment allocation and confounders. However, there is still limited information on the best strategy for building these treatment models in practice. We developed a series of simulations to systematically determine the effect of including different types of candidate variables in such models. We explored the performance of IPTW estimators across several scenarios of increasing complexity, including one designed to mimic the complexity typically seen in large pharmacoepidemiologic studies.Our results show that including pure predictors of treatment (i.e. not confounders) in treatment models can lead to estimators that are biased and highly variable, particularly in the context of small samples. The bias and mean-squared error of the MSM-based IPTW estimator increase as the complexity of the problem increases. The performance of the estimator is improved by either increasing the sample size or using only variables related to the outcome to develop the treatment model. Estimates of treatment effect based on the true model for the probability of treatment are asymptotically unbiased.We recommend including only pure risk factors and confounders in the treatment model when developing an IPTW-based MSM.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.182 | 0.603 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".