Propensity score matching and complex surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers are increasingly using complex population-based sample surveys to estimate the effects of treatments, exposures and interventions. In such analyses, statistical methods are essential to minimize the effect of confounding due to measured covariates, as treated subjects frequently differ from control subjects. Methods based on the propensity score are increasingly popular. Minimal research has been conducted on how to implement propensity score matching when using data from complex sample surveys. We used Monte Carlo simulations to examine two critical issues when implementing propensity score matching with such data. First, we examined how the propensity score model should be formulated. We considered three different formulations depending on whether or not a weighted regression model was used to estimate the propensity score and whether or not the survey weights were included in the propensity score model as an additional covariate. Second, we examined whether matched control subjects should retain their natural survey weight or whether they should inherit the survey weight of the treated subject to which they were matched. Our results were inconclusive with respect to which method of estimating the propensity score model was preferable. In general, greater balance in measured baseline covariates and decreased bias was observed when natural retained weights were used compared to when inherited weights were used. We also demonstrated that bootstrap-based methods performed well for estimating the variance of treatment effects when outcomes are binary. We illustrated the application of our methods by using the Canadian Community Health Survey to estimate the effect of educational attainment on lifetime prevalence of mood or anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.078 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".