AteMeVs: An R package for the estimation of the average treatment effect with measurement error and variable selection for confounders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In causal inference, the estimation of the average treatment effect is often of interest. For example, in cancer research, an interesting question is to assess the effects of the chemotherapy treatment on cancer, with the information of gene expressions taken into account. Two crucial challenges in this analysis involve addressing measurement error in gene expressions and handling noninformative gene expressions. While analytical methods have been developed to address those challenges, no user-friendly computational software packages seem to be available to implement those methods. To close this gap, we develop an R package, called AteMeVs, to estimate the average treatment effect using the inverse-probability-weighting estimation method to handle data with both measurement error and spurious variables. This developed package accommodates the method proposed by Yi and Chen (2023) as a special case, and further extends its application to a broader scope. The usage of the developed R package is illustrated by applying it to analyze a cancer dataset with information of gene expressions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".