Safety surveillance and the estimation of risk in select populations: Flexible methods to control for confounding while targeting marginal comparisons via standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the critical problem of pharmacosurveillance for adverse events once a drug or medical product is incorporated into routine clinical care. When making inference on comparative safety using large-scale electronic health records, we often encounter an extremely rare binary adverse outcome with a large number of potential confounders. In this context, it is challenging to offer flexible methods to adjust for high-dimensional confounders, whereas use of the propensity score (PS) can help address this challenge by providing both confounding control and dimension reduction. Among PS methods, regression adjustment using the PS as a covariate in an outcome model has been incompletely studied and potentially misused. Previous studies have suggested that simple linear adjustment may not provide sufficient control of confounding. Moreover, no formal representation of the statistical procedure and associated inference has been detailed. In this paper, we characterize a three-step procedure, which performs flexible regression adjustment of the estimated PS followed by standardization to estimate the causal effect in a select population. We also propose a simple variance estimation method for performing inference. Through a realistic simulation mimicking data from the Food and Drugs Administration's Sentinel Initiative comparing the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers on incidence of angioedema, we show that flexible regression on the PS resulted in less bias without loss of efficiency, and can outperform other methods when the PS model is correctly specified. In addition, the direct variance estimation method is a computationally fast and reliable approach for inference.
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 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".