Propensity score matching after multiple imputation when a confounder has missing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main challenges when using observational data for causal inference is the presence of confounding. A classic approach to account for confounding is the use of propensity score techniques that provide consistent estimators of the causal treatment effect under four common identifiability assumptions for causal effects, including that of no unmeasured confounding. Propensity score matching is a very popular approach which, in its simplest form, involves matching each treated patient to an untreated patient with a similar estimated propensity score, that is, probability of receiving the treatment. The treatment effect can then be estimated by comparing treated and untreated patients within the matched dataset. When missing data arises, a popular approach is to apply multiple imputation to handle the missingness. The combination of propensity score matching and multiple imputation is increasingly applied in practice. However, in this article we demonstrate that combining multiple imputation and propensity score matching can lead to over-coverage of the confidence interval for the treatment effect estimate. We explore the cause of this over-coverage and we evaluate, in this context, the performance of a correction to Rubin's rules for multiple imputation proposed by finding that this correction removes the over-coverage.
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 | 0.058 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".