gfoRmula: An R Package for Estimating the Effects of Sustained Treatment Strategies via the Parametric g-formula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers are often interested in estimating the causal effects of sustained treatment strategies, i.e., of (hypothetical) interventions involving time-varying treatments. When using observational data, estimating those effects requires adjustment for confounding. However, conventional regression methods cannot appropriately adjust for confounding in the presence of treatment-confounder feedback. In contrast, estimators derived from Robins's g-formula may correctly adjust for confounding even if treatment-confounder feedback exists. The package gfoRmula implements in R one such estimator: the parametric g-formula. This estimator can be used to estimate the effects of binary or continuous time-varying treatments as well as contrasts defined by static or dynamic, deterministic, or random interventions, as well as interventions that depend on the natural value of treatment. The package accommodates survival outcomes as well as binary or continuous outcomes measured at the end of follow-up. This paper describes the gfoRmula package, along with motivating background, features, and examples.
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 | 0.011 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.034 |
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".