Negative control-calibrated difference-in-difference analyses: addressing unmeasured confounding in RWD with application to racial/ethnic differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-world data (RWD) from electronic health records and digital health databases present unique opportunities to study causal effects in healthcare. While Difference-in-Differences (DiD) analysis is widely used for such analyses, it can be biased when time-varying unmeasured confounding violates the parallel trends assumption. We propose a negative control-calibrated difference-in-difference (NC-DiD) approach that uses negative control outcomes (NCOs) both before and after the intervention to detect and adjust for such confounding. The method remains robust even with partially unreliable controls. In simulations, NC-DiD reduces bias, controls type-I error, and improves estimation accuracy. We applied NC-DiD to assess racial/ethnic disparities in post COVID-19 health outcomes using RWD emulated from pediatric 15,373 patients across eight children's hospitals. Results revealed worse long-term outcomes for minority groups compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. NC-DiD offers a robust framework for deriving reliable causal insights from digital health data, supporting evidence-based clinical decision-making and potentially improving patient outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".