Addressing missing data in the estimation of time‐varying treatments in comparative effectiveness research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative effectiveness research is often concerned with evaluating treatment strategies sustained over time, that is, time-varying treatments. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) is often used to address the time-varying confounding by re-weighting the sample according to the probability of treatment receipt at each time point. IPW can also be used to address any missing data by re-weighting individuals according to the probability of observing the data. The combination of these two distinct sets of weights may lead to inefficient estimates of treatment effects due to potentially highly variable total weights. Alternatively, multiple imputation (MI) can be used to address the missing data by replacing each missing observation with a set of plausible values drawn from the posterior predictive distribution of the missing data given the observed data. Recent studies have compared IPW and MI for addressing the missing data in the evaluation of time-varying treatments, but they focused on missing confounders and monotone missing data patterns. This article assesses the relative advantages of MI and IPW to address missing data in both outcomes and confounders measured over time, and across monotone and non-monotone missing data settings. Through a comprehensive simulation study, we find that MI consistently provided low bias and more precise estimates compared to IPW across a wide range of scenarios. We illustrate the implications of method choice in an evaluation of biologic drugs for patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis, using the US National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, in which 25% of participants had missing health outcomes or time-varying confounders.
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 | 0.307 | 0.572 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".