On flexible inverse probability of treatment and intensity weighting: Informative censoring, variable selection, and weight trimming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many observational studies feature irregular longitudinal data, where the observation times are not common across individuals in the study. Furthermore, the observation times may be related to the longitudinal outcome. In this setting, failing to account for the informative observation process may result in biased causal estimates. This can be coupled with other sources of bias, including nonrandomized treatment assignments and informative censoring. This paper provides an overview of a flexible weighting method used to adjust for informative observation processes and nonrandomized treatment assignments. We investigate the sensitivity of the flexible weighting method to violations of the noninformative censoring assumption, examine variable selection for the observation process weighting model, known as inverse intensity weighting, and look at the impacts of weight trimming for the flexible weighting model. We show that the flexible weighting method is sensitive to violations of the noninformative censoring assumption and that a previously proposed extension fails under such violations. We also show that variables confounding the observation and outcome processes should always be included in the observation intensity model. Finally, we show scenarios where weight trimming should and should not be used, and highlight sensitivities of the flexible inverse probability of treatment and intensity weighting method to extreme weights. We conclude with an application of the methodology to a real data set to examine the impacts of household water sources on malaria diagnoses.
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 | 0.104 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".