Evidence of the Different Associations of Prognostic Factors With Censoring Across Treatment Groups and Impact on Censoring Weight Model Specification: The Example of Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCWs) may reduce selection bias due to informative censoring in longitudinal studies. However, in studies with an active comparator, the associations between predictors and censoring may differ across treatment groups. We used the clinical example of anticoagulation treatment with warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in atrial fibrillation to illustrate this. The cohort of individuals initiating an oral anticoagulant during 2010-2016 was identified from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) databases. The parameter of interest was the hazard ratio (HR) of the composite of stroke, major bleeding, myocardial infarction, or death associated with continuous use of warfarin versus DOACs. Two strategies for the specification of the model for estimation of censoring weights were explored: exposure-unstratified and exposure-stratified. The HR associated with continuous treatment with warfarin versus DOACs adjusted with exposure-stratified IPCWs was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.20, 1.33). Using exposure-unstratified IPCWs, the HR differed by 15% in favor of DOACs (1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.34, 1.48). Not accounting for the different associations between the predictors and informative censoring across exposure groups may lead to misspecification of censoring weights and biased estimate on comparative effectiveness and safety.
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 | 0.355 | 0.585 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".