Physician Effects in Critical Care: A Causal Inference Approach Through Propensity Weighting with Parametric and Super Learning Methods
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.
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 | 0.037 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".