论文标题
部分可观测时空混沌系统的无模型预测
An Inverse Probability Weighted Regression Method that Accounts for Right-censoring for Causal Inference with Multiple Treatments and a Binary Outcome
论文作者
论文摘要
比较有效性研究通常涉及评估使用观察数据之间两种或多个治疗方法之间感兴趣的事件风险的差异。通常,感兴趣的后处理结果是事件是否发生在预先指定的时间窗口中,这会导致二进制结果。估计因果治疗效果的偏见的一种来源是存在混杂因素,通常使用基于倾向分数的方法来控制。右审查的另一个额外来源是,当有关辍学,研究终止或治疗转换之前,有关感兴趣结果的信息在感兴趣的事件发生之前就会发生。我们提出了一个基于加权回归的逆向概率的估计器,该估计器可以同时处理混淆和右审查,称为方法CIPWR,字母C强调了检查组件。 CIPWR通过平均使用加权分数函数拟合的逻辑回归模型获得的预测结果来估计平均治疗效果。 CIPWR估计器具有双重鲁棒性属性,因此当正确指定结果的模型或治疗和检查模型时,可以达到估计一致性。我们建立了CIPWR估计量进行推理的渐近性能,并通过模拟研究将其有限样本性能与几种替代性进行比较。比较中的方法适用于来自保险索赔数据库的前列腺癌患者,以比较四种候选药物对晚期前列腺癌的不利影响。
Comparative effectiveness research often involves evaluating the differences in the risks of an event of interest between two or more treatments using observational data. Often, the post-treatment outcome of interest is whether the event happens within a pre-specified time window, which leads to a binary outcome. One source of bias for estimating the causal treatment effect is the presence of confounders, which are usually controlled using propensity score-based methods. An additional source of bias is right-censoring, which occurs when the information on the outcome of interest is not completely available due to dropout, study termination, or treatment switch before the event of interest. We propose an inverse probability weighted regression-based estimator that can simultaneously handle both confounding and right-censoring, calling the method CIPWR, with the letter C highlighting the censoring component. CIPWR estimates the average treatment effects by averaging the predicted outcomes obtained from a logistic regression model that is fitted using a weighted score function. The CIPWR estimator has a double robustness property such that estimation consistency can be achieved when either the model for the outcome or the models for both treatment and censoring are correctly specified. We establish the asymptotic properties of the CIPWR estimator for conducting inference, and compare its finite sample performance with that of several alternatives through simulation studies. The methods under comparison are applied to a cohort of prostate cancer patients from an insurance claims database for comparing the adverse effects of four candidate drugs for advanced stage prostate cancer.