High-Dimensional Propensity Score and Its Machine Learning Extensions in Residual Confounding Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The use of health care claims datasets often encounters criticism due to the pervasive issues of omitted variables and inaccuracies or mis-measurements in available confounders. Ultimately, the treatment effects estimated utilizing such data sources may be subject to residual confounding. Digital electronic administrative records routinely collect a large volume of health-related information; and many of which are usually not considered in conventional pharmacoepidemiological studies. A high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) algorithm was proposed that utilizes such information as surrogates or proxies for mismeasured and unobserved confounders in an effort to reduce residual confounding bias. Since then, many machine learning and semi-parametric extensions of this algorithm have been proposed to better exploit the wealth of high-dimensional proxy information. In this tutorial, we will (i) demonstrate logic, steps and implementation guidelines of hdPS utilizing an open data source as an example (using reproducible R codes), (ii) familiarize readers with the key difference between propensity score vs. hdPS, as well as the requisite sensitivity analyses, (iii) explain the rationale for using the machine learning and double robust extensions of hdPS, and (iv) discuss advantages, controversies, and hdPS reporting guidelines while writing a manuscript.”
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 | 0.051 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".