The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The propensity score which is the probability of exposure to a specific treatment conditional on observed variables. Conditioning on the propensity score results in unbiased estimation of the expected difference in observed responses to two treatments. In the medical literature, propensity score methods are frequently used for estimating odds ratios. The performance of propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios has not been studied. We performed a series of Monte Carlo simulations to assess the performance of propensity score matching, stratifying on the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score to estimate marginal odds ratios. We assessed bias, precision, and mean-squared error (MSE) of the propensity score estimators, in addition to the proportion of bias eliminated due to conditioning on the propensity score. When the true marginal odds ratio was one, then matching on the propensity score and covariate adjustment using the propensity score resulted in unbiased estimation of the true treatment effect, whereas stratification on the propensity score resulted in minor bias in estimating the true marginal odds ratio. When the true marginal odds ratio ranged from 2 to 10, then matching on the propensity score resulted in the least bias, with a relative biases ranging from 2.3 to 13.3 per cent. Stratifying on the propensity score resulted in moderate bias, with relative biases ranging from 15.8 to 59.2 per cent. For both methods, relative bias was proportional to the true odds ratio. Finally, matching on the propensity score tended to result in estimators with the lowest MSE.
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 | 0.078 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".