MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395113354 · doi:10.1177/09622802241247742

The performance of marginal structural models for estimating risk differences and relative risks using weighted univariate generalized linear models

2024· article· en· W4395113354 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter C. Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsEstimatorWeightingUnivariateGeneralized linear modelSample size determinationEconometricsMultivariate statisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used Monte Carlo simulations to compare the performance of marginal structural models (MSMs) based on weighted univariate generalized linear models (GLMs) to estimate risk differences and relative risks for binary outcomes in observational studies. We considered four different sets of weights based on the propensity score: inverse probability of treatment weights with the average treatment effect as the target estimand, weights for estimating the average treatment effect in the treated, matching weights and overlap weights. We considered sample sizes ranging from 500 to 10,000 and allowed the prevalence of treatment to range from 0.1 to 0.9. We examined both the robust variance estimator when using generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation matrix and a bootstrap variance estimator for estimating the standard error of the risk difference and the log-relative risk. The performance of these methods was compared with that of direct weighting. Both the direct weighting approach and MSMs based on weighted univariate GLMs resulted in the identical estimates of risk differences and relative risks. When sample sizes were small to moderate, the use of an MSM with a bootstrap variance estimator tended to result in the most accurate estimates of standard errors. When sample sizes were large, the direct weighting approach and an MSM with a bootstrap variance estimator tended to produce estimates of standard error with similar accuracy. When using a MSM to estimate risk differences and relative risks, in general it is preferable to use a bootstrap variance estimator than the robust variance estimator. We illustrate the application of the different methods for estimating risks differences and relative risks using an observational study on the effect on mortality of discharge prescribing of a beta-blocker in patients hospitalized with 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.349
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.349
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.532
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207