Minimizing confounding in comparative observational studies with time-to-event outcomes: An extensive comparison of covariate balancing methods using Monte Carlo simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational studies are frequently used in clinical research to estimate the effects of treatments or exposures on outcomes. To reduce the effects of confounding when estimating treatment effects, covariate balancing methods are frequently implemented. This study evaluated, using extensive Monte Carlo simulation, several methods of covariate balancing, and two methods for propensity score estimation, for estimating the average treatment effect on the treated using a hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model. With respect to minimizing bias and maximizing accuracy (as measured by the mean square error) of the treatment effect, the average treatment effect on the treated weighting, fine stratification, and optimal full matching with a conventional logistic regression model for the propensity score performed best across all simulated conditions. Other methods performed well in specific circumstances, such as pair matching when sample sizes were large (n = 5000) and the proportion treated was < 0.25. Statistical power was generally higher for weighting methods than matching methods, and Type I error rates were at or below the nominal level for balancing methods with unbiased treatment effect estimates. There was also a decreasing effective sample size with an increasing number of strata, therefore for stratification-based weighting methods, it may be important to consider fewer strata. Generally, we recommend methods that performed well in our simulations, although the identification of methods that performed well is necessarily limited by the specific features of our simulation. The methods are illustrated using a real-world example comparing beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors among hypertensive patients at risk for incident stroke.
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 | 0.180 | 0.369 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".