Variance estimation of the risk difference when using propensity‐score matching and weighting with time‐to‐event outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational studies are increasingly being used in medicine to estimate the effects of treatments or exposures on outcomes. To minimize the potential for confounding when estimating treatment effects, propensity score methods are frequently implemented. Often outcomes are the time to event. While it is common to report the treatment effect as a relative effect, such as the hazard ratio, reporting the effect using an absolute measure of effect is also important. One commonly used absolute measure of effect is the risk difference or difference in probability of the occurrence of an event within a specified duration of follow-up between a treatment and comparison group. We first describe methods for point and variance estimation of the risk difference when using weighting or matching based on the propensity score when outcomes are time-to-event. Next, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations to compare the relative performance of these methods with respect to bias of the point estimate, accuracy of variance estimates, and coverage of estimated confidence intervals. The results of the simulation generally support the use of weighting methods (untrimmed ATT weights and IPTW) or caliper matching when the prevalence of treatment is low for point estimation. For standard error estimation the simulation results support the use of weighted robust standard errors, bootstrap methods, or matching with a naïve standard error (i.e., Greenwood method). The methods considered in the article are illustrated using a real-world example in which we estimate the effect of discharge prescribing of statins on patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.064 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".