Missing data in the exposure of interest and marginal structural models: A simulation study based on the Framingham Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing data are common in longitudinal studies and can occur in the exposure interest. There has been little work assessing the impact of missing data in marginal structural models (MSMs), which are used to estimate the effect of an exposure history on an outcome when time-dependent confounding is present. We design a series of simulations based on the Framingham Heart Study data set to investigate the impact of missing data in the primary exposure of interest in a complex, realistic setting. We use a standard application of MSMs to estimate the causal odds ratio of a specific activity history on outcome. We report and discuss the results of four missing data methods, under seven possible missing data structures, including scenarios in which an unmeasured variable predicts missing information. In all missing data structures, we found that a complete case analysis, where all subjects with missing exposure data are removed from the analysis, provided the least bias. An analysis that censored individuals at the first occasion of missing exposure and includes a censorship model as well as a propensity model when creating the inverse probability weights also performed well. The presence of an unmeasured predictor of missing data only slightly increased bias, except in the situation such that the exposure had a large impact on missing data and the unmeasured variable had a large impact on missing data and outcome. A discussion of the results is provided using causal diagrams, showing the usefulness of drawing such diagrams before conducting an analysis.
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 | 0.032 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".