Model averaged double robust estimation

Biometrics

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 410-421

  Cefalu, Matthew ^a   Dominici, Francesca ^b   Arvold, Nils ^c   Parmigiani, Giovanni ^b,d  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c St Luke's Internal Medicine Associates   (United States)

^d DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

causal inference; confounding; double robustness; model averaging; propensity score; variable selection

Indexed keywords

HEALTH INSURANCE; RADIOTHERAPY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CAUSAL INFERENCES; CONFOUNDER; CONFOUNDING; DOUBLE ROBUSTNESS; HIGH-DIMENSIONAL; MODEL AVERAGING; PROPENSITY SCORE; ROBUST ESTIMATION; ROBUST ESTIMATORS; VARIABLES SELECTIONS;

MEAN SQUARE ERROR;

DRUG; ESTIMATION METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; TUMOR;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; PROPENSITY SCORE; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 85006152289     PISSN: 0006341X     EISSN: 15410420     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/biom.12622     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Akaike, H. (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike, 199–213. New York: Springer.
2. Arvold, N., Wang, Y., Zigler, C., Schrag, D., and Dominici, F. (2014). Hospitalization burden and survival among older glioblastoma patients? Neuro-Oncology 16, 1530.
3. Arvold, N. D. and Reardon, D. A. (2014). Treatment options and outcomes for glioblastoma in the elderly patient. Clinical Interventions in Aging 9, 357.
4. Bang, H. and Robins, J. M. (2005). Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 61, 962–973.
5. Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., and Stürmer T. (2006). Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology 163, 1149–1156.
6. Cao, W., Tsiatis, A. A., and Davidian, M. (2009). Improving efficiency and robustness of the doubly robust estimator for a population mean with incomplete data. Biometrika 96, 723–734.
7. Cefalu, M. (2016). madr: Model Averaged Double Robust Estimation. R package version 1.0.0.
8. De Luna, X., Waernbaum, I., and Richardson, T. S. (2011). Covariate selection for the nonparametric estimation of an average treatment effect. Biometrika 98, 861–875.
9. Greenland, S., Robins, J. M., and Pearl, J. (1999). Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Statistical Science 14, 29–46.
10. Groenwold, R. H., Klungel, O. H., Grobbee, D. E., and Hoes, A. W. (2011). Selection of confounding variables should not be based on observed associations with exposure. European Journal of Epidemiology 26, 589–593.
11. Gruber, S. and van der Laan, M. J. (2010). An application of collaborative targeted maximum likelihood estimation in causal inference and genomics. The International Journal of Biostatistics 6.
12. Gruber, S. and van der Laan, M. J. (2012). Consistent causal effect estimation under dual misspecification and implications for confounder selection procedures. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 24, 1003–1008.
13. Hahn, J. (2004). Functional restriction and efficiency in causal inference. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 73–76.
14. Han, P. and Wang, L. (2013). Estimation with missing data: Beyond double robustness. Biometrika 100, 417–430.
15. Joffe, M. M., Ten Have, T. R., Feldman, H. I., and Kimmel, S. E. (2004). Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models. The American Statistician 58, 272–279.
16. Longford, N. T. (2006). Missing Data and Small-Area Estimation: Modern Analytical Equipment for the Survey Statistician. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
17. Madigan, D., York, J., and Allard, D. (1995). Bayesian graphical models for discrete data. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique 63, 215–232.
18. McCandless, L. C., Douglas, I. J., Evans, S. J., and Smeeth, L. (2010). Cutting feedback in bayesian regression adjustment for the propensity score. The International Journal of Biostatistics 6.
19. Pearl, J. (2009). On a class of bias-amplifying covariates that endanger effect estimates. Technical report, Citeseer.
20. Pope, G. C., Kautter, J. Ellis, R. P., Ash, A. S., Ayanian, J. Z., Ingber, M. J., Levy, J. M., and Robst, J. (2004). Risk adjustment of medicare capitation payments using the cms-hcc model. Health Care Financing Review 25, 119.
21. R Core Team (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
22. Robins, J., Sued, M., Lei-Gomez, Q. and Rotnitzky, A. (2007). Comment: Performance of double-robust estimators when inverse probability weights are highly variable. Statistical Science 22, 544–559.
23. Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.
24. Rubin, D. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of internal medicine 127, 757–763.
25. Schneeweiss, S., Rassen, J. A., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., Mogun, H., and Brookhart, M. A. (2009). High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology 20, 512–22.
26. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 6, 461–464.
27. Scott, J. G., Berger, J. O., et al. (2010). Bayes and empirical-bayes multiplicity adjustment in the variable-selection problem. The Annals of Statistics 38, 2587–2619.
28. Shahar, E. (2013). A new criterion for confounder selection? Neither a confounder nor science. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19, 984–986.
29. Tan, Z. (2010). Bounded, efficient and doubly robust estimation with inverse weighting. Biometrika 97, 661–682.
30. van der Laan, M. J. and Gruber, S. (2010). Collaborative double robust targeted maximum likelihood estimation. The International Journal of Biostatistics 6.
31. VanderWeele, T. J. and Shpitser, I. (2011). A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics 67, 1406–1413.
32. Vansteelandt, S., Bekaert, M., and Claeskens, G. (2012). On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 21, 7–30.
33. Wang, C., Dominici, F., Parmigiani, G., and Zigler, C. M. (2015). Accounting for uncertainty in confounder and effect modifier selection when estimating average causal effects in generalized linear models. Biometrics 71, 654–665.
34. Wang, C., Parmigiani, G., and Dominici, F. (2012). Bayesian effect estimation accounting for adjustment uncertainty. Biometrics 68, 661–671.
35. Wilson, A. and Reich, B. J. (2014). Confounder selection via penalized credible regions. Biometrics 70, 852–861.
36. Wooldridge, J. (2009). Should instrumental variables be used as matching variables. Technical report, Tech. Rep. https://www.msu.edu/ec/faculty/wooldridge/current% 20research/treat1r6. pdf, Michigan State University, MI.
37. Yang, Y. (2003). Regression with multiple candidate models: Selecting or mixing? Statistica Sinica 13, 783–809.
38. Yang, Y. (2005). Can the strengths of aic and bic be shared? A conflict between model indentification and regression estimation. Biometrika 92, 937–950.
39. Zigler, C. M. and Dominici, F. (2014). Uncertainty in propensity score estimation: Bayesian methods for variable selection and model-averaged causal effects. Journal of the American Statistical Association 109, 95–107.
40. Zigler, C. M., Watts, K., Yeh, R. W., Wang, Y., Coull, B. A., and Dominici, F. (2013). Model feedback in bayesian propensity score estimation. Biometrics 69, 263–273.