Incremental Propensity Score Effects for Time-fixed Exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When causal inference is of primary interest, a range of target parameters can be chosen to define the causal effect, such as average treatment effects (ATEs). However, ATEs may not always align with the research question at hand. Furthermore, the assumptions needed to interpret estimates as ATEs, such as exchangeability, consistency, and positivity, are often not met. Here, we present the incremental propensity score (PS) approach to quantify the effect of shifting each person's exposure propensity by some predetermined amount. Compared with the ATE, incremental PS may better reflect the impact of certain policy interventions and do not require that positivity hold. Using the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be (nuMoM2b), we quantified the relationship between total vegetable intake and the risk of preeclampsia and compared it to average treatment effect estimates. The ATE estimates suggested a reduction of between two and three preeclampsia cases per 100 pregnancies for consuming at least half a cup of vegetables per 1,000 kcal. However, positivity violations obfuscate the interpretation of these results. In contrast, shifting each woman's exposure propensity by odds ratios ranging from 0.20 to 5.0 yielded no difference in the risk of preeclampsia. Our analyses show the utility of the incremental PS effects in addressing public health questions with fewer assumptions.
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 | 0.051 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".