Is Checking for Sequential Positivity Violations Getting You Down? Try sPoRT!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sequential positivity is often a necessary assumption for drawing causal inferences, such as through marginal structural modeling. Unfortunately, verification of this assumption can be challenging because it usually relies on multiple parametric propensity score models, unlikely to all be correctly specified. Therefore, we propose a new algorithm, called sequential Positivity Regression Tree (sPoRT), to overcome this issue and identify the subgroups found to be violating this assumption, allowing for insights about the nature of the violations and potential solutions. METHODS: We present different versions of sPoRT based on either stratifying or pooling over time under static or dynamic treatment strategies. This methodologic development was motivated by a real-life application of the impact of the timing of initiation of HIV treatment with and without smoothing over time, which we also use to demonstrate the method. RESULTS: The illustration of sPoRT demonstrates its easy use and the interpretability of the results for applied epidemiologists. Furthermore, an R notebook showing how to use sPoRT in practice is available at github.com/ArthurChatton/sPoRT-notebook. CONCLUSIONS: The sPoRT algorithm provides interpretable subgroups violating the sequential positivity violation, allowing patterns and trends in the confounders to be easily identified. We finally provided practical implications and recommendations when positivity violations are identified.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".