Estimating adjusted risk differences by multiply‐imputing missing control binary potential outcomes following propensity score‐matching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a new method to combine propensity-score matching with regression adjustment in treatment-control studies when outcomes are binary by multiply imputing potential outcomes under control for the matched treated subjects. This enables the estimation of clinically meaningful measures of effect such as the risk difference. We used Monte Carlo simulation to explore the effect of the number of imputed potential outcomes under control for the matched treated subjects on inferences about the risk difference. We found that imputing potential outcomes under control (either single imputation or multiple imputation) resulted in a substantial reduction in bias compared with what was achieved using conventional nearest neighbor matching alone. Increasing the number of imputed potential outcomes under control resulted in more efficient estimation, with more efficient estimation of the estimated risk difference when increasing the number of the imputed potential outcomes. The greatest relative increase in efficiency was achieved by imputing five potential outcomes; once 20 outcomes under control were imputed for each matched treated subject, further improvements in efficiency were negligible. We also examined the effect of the number of these imputed potential outcomes on: (i) estimated standard errors; (ii) mean squared error; (iii) coverage of estimated confidence intervals. We illustrate the application of the method by estimating the effect on the risk of death within 1 year of prescribing beta-blockers to patients discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of heart failure.
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 | 0.040 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".