Estimation of the marginal effect of antidepressants on body mass index under confounding and endogenous covariate-driven monitoring times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In studying the marginal effect of antidepressants on body mass index using electronic health records data, we face several challenges. Patients’ characteristics can affect the exposure (confounding) as well as the timing of routine visits (measurement process), and those characteristics may be altered following a visit which can create dependencies between the monitoring and body mass index when viewed as a stochastic or random processes in time. This may result in a form of selection bias that distorts the estimation of the marginal effect of the antidepressant. Inverse intensity of visit weights have been proposed to adjust for these imbalances, however no approaches have addressed complex settings where the covariate and the monitoring processes affect each other in time so as to induce endogeneity, a situation likely to occur in electronic health records. We review how selection bias due to outcome-dependent follow-up times may arise and propose a new cumulated weight that models a complete monitoring path so as to address the above-mentioned challenges and produce a reliable estimate of the impact of antidepressants on body mass index. More specifically, we do so using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the United Kingdom, comparing the marginal effect of two commonly used antidepressants, citalopram and fluoxetine, on body mass index. The results are compared to those obtained with simpler methods that do not account for the extent of the dependence due to an endogenous covariate process.
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 | 0.030 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".