Marginal structural models with latent class growth analysis of treatment trajectories: Statins for primary prevention among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latent class growth analysis is increasingly proposed as a solution to summarize the observed longitudinal treatment into a few distinct groups. When latent class growth analysis is combined with standard approaches like Cox proportional hazards models, confounding bias is not properly addressed because of time-varying covariates that have a double role of confounders and mediators. We propose to use latent class growth analysis to classify individuals into a few latent classes based on their medication adherence pattern, then choose a working marginal structural model that relates the outcome to these groups. The parameter of interest is defined as a projection of the true marginal structural model onto the chosen working model. Simulation studies are used to illustrate our approach and compare it with unadjusted, baseline covariates adjusted, time-varying covariates adjusted, and inverse probability of trajectory groups weighted adjusted models. Our proposed approach yielded estimators with little or no bias and appropriate coverage of confidence intervals in these simulations. We applied our latent class growth analysis and marginal structural model approach to a database comprising information on 52,790 individuals from the province of Quebec, Canada, aged more than 65 and who were statin initiators to estimate the effect of statin-usage trajectories on a first cardiovascular event.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".