Variable selection for causal mediation analysis using LASSO-based methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal mediation effect estimates can be obtained from marginal structural models using inverse probability weighting with appropriate weights. In order to compute weights, treatment and mediator propensity score models need to be fitted first. If the covariates are high-dimensional, parsimonious propensity score models can be developed by regularization methods including LASSO and its variants. Furthermore, in a mediation setup, more efficient direct or indirect effect estimators can be obtained by using outcome-adaptive LASSO to select variables for propensity score models by incorporating the outcome information. A simulation study is conducted to assess how different regularization methods can affect the performance of estimated natural direct and indirect effect odds ratios. Our simulation results show that regularizing propensity score models by outcome-adaptive LASSO can improve the efficiency of the natural effect estimators and by optimizing balance in the covariates, bias can be reduced in most cases. The regularization methods are then applied to MIMIC-III database, an ICU database developed by MIT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.351 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".