Covariate-adjusted survival analyses in propensity-score matched samples: Imputing potential time-to-event outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matching on an estimated propensity score is frequently used to estimate the effects of treatments from observational data. Since the 1970s, different authors have proposed methods to combine matching at the design stage with regression adjustment at the analysis stage when estimating treatment effects for continuous outcomes. Previous work has consistently shown that the combination has generally superior statistical properties than either method by itself. In biomedical and epidemiological research, survival or time-to-event outcomes are common. We propose a method to combine regression adjustment and propensity score matching to estimate survival curves and hazard ratios based on estimating an imputed potential outcome under control for each successfully matched treated subject, which is accomplished using either an accelerated failure time parametric survival model or a Cox proportional hazard model that is fit to the matched control subjects. That is, a fitted model is then applied to the matched treated subjects to allow simulation of the missing potential outcome under control for each treated subject. Conventional survival analyses (e.g., estimation of survival curves and hazard ratios) can then be conducted using the observed outcome under treatment and the imputed outcome under control. We evaluated the repeated-sampling bias of the proposed methods using simulations. When using nearest neighbor matching, the proposed method resulted in decreased bias compared to crude analyses in the matched sample. We illustrate the method in an example prescribing beta-blockers at hospital discharge to patients hospitalized with heart failure.
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 | 0.029 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".