Constructing Inverse Probability Weights for Continuous Exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse probability-weighted marginal structural models with binary exposures are common in epidemiology. Constructing inverse probability weights for a continuous exposure can be complicated by the presence of outliers, and the need to identify a parametric form for the exposure and account for nonconstant exposure variance. We explored the performance of various methods to construct inverse probability weights for continuous exposures using Monte Carlo simulation. We generated two continuous exposures and binary outcomes using data sampled from a large empirical cohort. The first exposure followed a normal distribution with homoscedastic variance. The second exposure followed a contaminated Poisson distribution, with heteroscedastic variance equal to the conditional mean. We assessed six methods to construct inverse probability weights using: a normal distribution, a normal distribution with heteroscedastic variance, a truncated normal distribution with heteroscedastic variance, a gamma distribution, a t distribution (1, 3, and 5 degrees of freedom), and a quantile binning approach (based on 10, 15, and 20 exposure categories). We estimated the marginal odds ratio for a single-unit increase in each simulated exposure in a regression model weighted by the inverse probability weights constructed using each approach, and then computed the bias and mean squared error for each method. For the homoscedastic exposure, the standard normal, gamma, and quantile binning approaches performed best. For the heteroscedastic exposure, the quantile binning, gamma, and heteroscedastic normal approaches performed best. Our results suggest that the quantile binning approach is a simple and versatile way to construct inverse probability weights for continuous exposures.
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 | 0.023 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".