Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in dynamic treatment regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-driven methods for personalizing treatment assignment have garnered much attention from clinicians and researchers. Dynamic treatment regimes formalize this through a sequence of decision rules that map individual patient characteristics to a recommended treatment. Observational studies are commonly used for estimating dynamic treatment regimes due to the potentially prohibitive costs of conducting sequential multiple assignment randomized trials. However, estimating a dynamic treatment regime from observational data can lead to bias in the estimated regime due to unmeasured confounding. Sensitivity analyses are useful for assessing how robust the conclusions of the study are to a potential unmeasured confounder. A Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis is a probabilistic approach that involves positing and sampling from distributions for the parameters governing the bias. We propose a method for performing a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of the bias due to unmeasured confounding in the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed procedure with a simulation study and apply it to an observational study examining tailoring the use of antidepressant medication for reducing symptoms of depression using data from Kaiser Permanente Washington.
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 | 0.098 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".