TY - JOUR
T1 - Confounder Adjustment Using the Disease Risk Score
T2 - A Proposal for Weighting Methods
AU - Nguyen, Tri Long
AU - Debray, Thomas P.A.
AU - Youn, Bora
AU - Simoneau, Gabrielle
AU - Collins, Gary S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/2/1
Y1 - 2024/2/1
N2 - Propensity score analysis is a common approach to addressing confounding in nonrandomized studies. Its implementation, however, requires important assumptions (e.g., positivity). The disease risk score (DRS) is an alternative confounding score that can relax some of these assumptions. Like the propensity score, the DRS summarizes multiple confounders into a single score, on which conditioning by matching allows the estimation of causal effects. However, matching relies on arbitrary choices for pruning out data (e.g., matching ratio, algorithm, and caliper width) and may be computationally demanding. Alternatively, weighting methods, common in propensity score analysis, are easy to implement and may entail fewer choices, yet none have been developed for the DRS. Here we present 2 weighting approaches: One derives directly from inverse probability weighting; the other, named target distribution weighting, relates to importance sampling. We empirically show that inverse probability weighting and target distribution weighting display performance comparable to matching techniques in terms of bias but outperform them in terms of efficiency (mean squared error) and computational speed (up to >870 times faster in an illustrative study). We illustrate implementation of the methods in 2 case studies where we investigate placebo treatments for multiple sclerosis and administration of aspirin in stroke patients.
AB - Propensity score analysis is a common approach to addressing confounding in nonrandomized studies. Its implementation, however, requires important assumptions (e.g., positivity). The disease risk score (DRS) is an alternative confounding score that can relax some of these assumptions. Like the propensity score, the DRS summarizes multiple confounders into a single score, on which conditioning by matching allows the estimation of causal effects. However, matching relies on arbitrary choices for pruning out data (e.g., matching ratio, algorithm, and caliper width) and may be computationally demanding. Alternatively, weighting methods, common in propensity score analysis, are easy to implement and may entail fewer choices, yet none have been developed for the DRS. Here we present 2 weighting approaches: One derives directly from inverse probability weighting; the other, named target distribution weighting, relates to importance sampling. We empirically show that inverse probability weighting and target distribution weighting display performance comparable to matching techniques in terms of bias but outperform them in terms of efficiency (mean squared error) and computational speed (up to >870 times faster in an illustrative study). We illustrate implementation of the methods in 2 case studies where we investigate placebo treatments for multiple sclerosis and administration of aspirin in stroke patients.
KW - causal inference
KW - confounding
KW - density
KW - disease risk score
KW - epidemiologic methods
KW - weighting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183981021&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/aje/kwad196
DO - 10.1093/aje/kwad196
M3 - Article
C2 - 37823269
AN - SCOPUS:85183981021
SN - 0002-9262
VL - 193
SP - 377
EP - 388
JO - American Journal of Epidemiology
JF - American Journal of Epidemiology
IS - 2
M1 - doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwad196
ER -