Assessing covariate balance when using the generalized propensity score with quantitative or continuous exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to estimate the effects of treatments and exposures when using observational data. The propensity score was initially developed for use with binary exposures (e.g., active treatment vs. control). The generalized propensity score is an extension of the propensity score for use with quantitative exposures (e.g., dose or quantity of medication, income, years of education). A crucial component of any propensity score analysis is that of balance assessment. This entails assessing the degree to which conditioning on the propensity score (via matching, weighting, or stratification) has balanced measured baseline covariates between exposure groups. Methods for balance assessment have been well described and are frequently implemented when using the propensity score with binary exposures. However, there is a paucity of information on how to assess baseline covariate balance when using the generalized propensity score. We describe how methods based on the standardized difference can be adapted for use with quantitative exposures when using the generalized propensity score. We also describe a method based on assessing the correlation between the quantitative exposure and each covariate in the sample when weighted using generalized propensity score -based weights. We conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the performance of these methods. We also compared two different methods of estimating the generalized propensity score: ordinary least squared regression and the covariate balancing propensity score method. We illustrate the application of these methods using data on patients hospitalized with a heart attack with the quantitative exposure being creatinine level.
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 | 0.049 | 0.190 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".