Double propensity-score adjustment: A solution to design bias or bias due to incomplete matching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propensity-score matching is frequently used to reduce the effects of confounding when using observational data to estimate the effects of treatments. Matching allows one to estimate the average effect of treatment in the treated. Rosenbaum and Rubin coined the term "bias due to incomplete matching" to describe the bias that can occur when some treated subjects are excluded from the matched sample because no appropriate control subject was available. The presence of incomplete matching raises important questions around the generalizability of estimated treatment effects to the entire population of treated subjects. We describe an analytic solution to address the bias due to incomplete matching. Our method is based on using optimal or nearest neighbor matching, rather than caliper matching (which frequently results in the exclusion of some treated subjects). Within the sample matched on the propensity score, covariate adjustment using the propensity score is then employed to impute missing potential outcomes under lack of treatment for each treated subject. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we found that the proposed method resulted in estimates of treatment effect that were essentially unbiased. This method resulted in decreased bias compared to caliper matching alone and compared to either optimal matching or nearest neighbor matching alone. Caliper matching alone resulted in design bias or bias due to incomplete matching, while optimal matching or nearest neighbor matching alone resulted in bias due to residual confounding. The proposed method also tended to result in estimates with decreased mean squared error compared to when caliper matching was used.
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 | 0.092 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".