Target Aggregate Data Adjustment Method for Transportability Analysis Utilizing Summary‐Level Data From the Target Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transportability analysis is a causal inference framework used to evaluate the external validity of studies by transporting treatment effects from a study sample to an external target population by adjusting for differences in the distributions of their effect modifiers. Most existing methods require individual patient-level data (IPD) for both the source and the target population, narrowing its applicability when only target aggregate-level data (AgD) are available. For survival analysis, accounting for censoring may be needed to reduce bias, yet AgD-based transportability methods in the presence of informative-censoring remain underexplored. Here, we propose a two-stage weighting framework named "Target Aggregate Data Adjustment" (TADA) that can simultaneously adjust for both censoring bias and distributional imbalances of effect modifiers. In our framework, the final weights are the product of the time-varying inverse probability of censoring weights and participation weights derived using the method of moments. We have conducted an extensive simulation study to evaluate TADA's performance. We have applied our methods to a real case study on the squamous non-small-cell lung cancer trial (NCT00981058). Our results indicate that TADA can effectively control the bias resulting from moderate censoring representative of most practical scenarios, and enhance the application and clinical interpretability of transportability analyses in settings with limited data availability.
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 | 0.029 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".