Physician Effects in Critical Care: A Causal Inference Approach Through Propensity Weighting with Parametric and Super Learning Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician performance is critical to caring for patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), who are in life-threatening situations and require high level medical care and interventions. Evaluating physicians is crucial for ensuring a high standard of medical care and fostering continuous performance improvement. The non-randomized nature of ICU data often results in imbalance in patient covariates across physician groups, making direct comparisons of the patients’ survival probabilities for each physician misleading. In this article, we utilize the propensity weighting method to address confounding, achieve covariates balance, and assess physician effects. Due to possible model misspecification, we compare the performance of the propensity weighting methods using both parametric models and super learning methods. When the generalized propensity or the quality function is not correctly specified within the parametric propensity weighting framework, super learning-based propensity weighting methods yield more efficient estimators. We demonstrate that utilizing propensity weighting offers an effective way to assess physician performance, a topic of considerable interest to hospital administrators.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it