On two approaches to weighting in causal inference

Epidemiology

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 812-816

  Hirshberg, David A ^a   Zubizarreta, José R ^b,c  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAUSAL INFERENCE; ENTROPY; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; CAUSALITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CAUSALITY; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 85045648797     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000735     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Setodji CM, McCaffrey DF, Burgette LF, Almirall D, Griffin BA. The right tool for the job: Choosing between covariate balancing and generalized boosted model propensity scores. Epidemiology. 2017.
2. McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:403-425.
3. Imai K, Ratkovic M. Covariate balancing propensity score. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2014;76:243-263.
4. Hainmueller J. Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate re-weighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit Anal. 2012;20:25-46.
5. Chan KCG, Yam SCP, Zhang Z. Globally efficient nonparametric inference of average treatment effects by empirical balancing calibration weighting. J R Stat Soc. 2016;78:673-700.
6. Zhao Q, Percival D. Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J Causal Inference. 2017;5.
7. Robins J, Rotnitzky A. Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate reg ression models with missing data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:122-129.
8. Bang H, Robins JM. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics. 2005;61:962-973.
9. Van der Laan MJ, Rose S. Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data. Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.
10. Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, et al. Double machine learning for treatment and causal parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00060, 2016.
11. Athey S, Imbens G W, Wager S. Approximate residual balancing: Debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07125, 2016.
12. Kallus N. Generalized optimal matching methods for causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08321, 2016.
13. Hirshberg DA, Wager S. Balancing out the unobservable: Weighting for uniform balance to attenuate regression errors in estimation of average treatment effects. Working Paper, 2017.
14. Wang Y, Zubizarreta JR. Approximate balancing weights: Characterizations from a shrinkage estimation perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00998, 2017.
15. Zubizarreta JR. Stable weights that balance covariates for estimation with incomplete outcome data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2015;110:910-922.
16. Rubin DB. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1979;74:318-328.
17. Rosenbaum PR. Covariance adjustment in randomized experiments and observational studies. Stat Sci. 2002;17:286-327.
18. Abadie A, Imbens G W. Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat. 2011;29:1-11.
19. Chipman HA, George EI, McCulloch RE. Bart: Bayesian additive regression trees. Ann Appl Stat. 2010;4:266-298.
20. Hill JL. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J Comp Graph Stat. 2011;217-240.