Reader reaction to “Outcome‐adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference” by Shortreed and Ertefaie (2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shortreed and Ertefaie introduced a clever propensity score variable selection approach for estimating average causal effects, namely, the outcome adaptive lasso (OAL). OAL aims to select desirable covariates, confounders, and predictors of outcome, to build an unbiased and statistically efficient propensity score estimator. Due to its design, a potential limitation of OAL is how it handles the collinearity problem, which is often encountered in high‐dimensional data. As seen in Shortreed and Ertefaie, OAL's performance degraded with increased correlation between covariates. In this note, we propose the generalized OAL (GOAL) that combines the strengths of the adaptively weighted L1 penalty and the elastic net to better handle the selection of correlated covariates. Two different versions of GOAL, which differ in their procedure (algorithm), are proposed. We compared OAL and GOAL in simulation scenarios that mimic those examined by Shortreed and Ertefaie. Although all approaches performed equivalently with independent covariates, we found that both GOAL versions were more performant than OAL in low and high dimensions with correlated covariates.
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 | 0.009 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.019 |
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".