Martingale residual‐based method to control for confounders measured only in a validation sample in time‐to‐event analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmeasured confounding remains an important problem in observational studies, including pharmacoepidemiological studies of large administrative databases. Several recently developed methods utilize smaller validation samples, with information on additional confounders, to control for confounders unmeasured in the main, larger database. However, up-to-date applications of these methods to survival analyses seem to be limited to propensity score calibration, which relies on a strong surrogacy assumption. We propose a new method, specifically designed for time-to-event analyses, which uses martingale residuals, in addition to measured covariates, to enhance imputation of the unmeasured confounders in the main database. The method is applicable for analyses with both time-invariant data and time-varying exposure/confounders. In simulations, our method consistently eliminated bias because of unmeasured confounding, regardless of surrogacy violation and other relevant design parameters, and almost always yielded lower mean squared errors than other methods applicable for survival analyses, outperforming propensity score calibration in several scenarios. We apply the method to a real-life pharmacoepidemiological database study of the association between glucocorticoid therapy and risk of type II diabetes mellitus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with additional potential confounders available in an external validation sample. Compared with conventional analyses, which adjust only for confounders measured in the main database, our estimates suggest a considerably weaker association. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.047 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".