Data‐adaptive longitudinal model selection in causal inference with collaborative targeted minimum loss‐based estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal inference methods have been developed for longitudinal observational study designs where confounding is thought to occur over time. In particular, one may estimate and contrast the population mean counterfactual outcome under specific exposure patterns. In such contexts, confounders of the longitudinal treatment-outcome association are generally identified using domain-specific knowledge. However, this may leave an analyst with a large set of potential confounders that may hinder estimation. Previous approaches to data-adaptive model selection for this type of causal parameter were limited to the single time-point setting. We develop a longitudinal extension of a collaborative targeted minimum loss-based estimation (C-TMLE) algorithm that can be applied to perform variable selection in the models for the probability of treatment with the goal of improving the estimation of the population mean counterfactual outcome under a fixed exposure pattern. We investigate the properties of this method through a simulation study, comparing it to G-Computation and inverse probability of treatment weighting. We then apply the method in a real-data example to evaluate the safety of trimester-specific exposure to inhaled corticosteroids during pregnancy in women with mild asthma. The data for this study were obtained from the linkage of electronic health databases in the province of Quebec, Canada. The C-TMLE covariate selection approach allowed for a reduction of the set of potential confounders, which included baseline and longitudinal variables.
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 | 0.044 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".