The challenge of informed consent: Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias

M. L. Frederiks; R. H.A. Verhoeven; H. W.M. van Laarhoven; M. Berbée; P. S.N. van Rossum; G. J. Meijer; H. Rütten; M. D.den Hartogh; J. J. Nuyttens; B. P.L. Wijnhoven; J. A. Langendijk; E. Schuit; C. T. Muijs

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575

The challenge of informed consent: Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias

M. L. Frederiks^*
, R. H.A. Verhoeven
, H. W.M. van Laarhoven
, M. Berbée
, P. S.N. van Rossum
, G. J. Meijer
, H. Rütten
, M. D.den Hartogh
, J. J. Nuyttens
, B. P.L. Wijnhoven
, J. A. Langendijk
, E. Schuit
, C. T. Muijs

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Informed consent requirements can introduce significant selection bias. This note evaluates prospective versus retrospective consent models and the utility of propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias. While statistical adjustments mitigate the bias, upfront consent frameworks are essential for ensuring unbiased population estimates.

Original language	English
Article number	111575
Journal	Radiotherapy and Oncology
Volume	220
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575
Publication status	Published - Jul 2026

Access to Document

10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575Licence: CC BY

1-s2.0-S0167814026004147-mainFinal published version, 989 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Frederiks, M. L., Verhoeven, R. H. A., van Laarhoven, H. W. M., Berbée, M., van Rossum, P. S. N., Meijer, G. J., Rütten, H., Hartogh, M. D. D., Nuyttens, J. J., Wijnhoven, B. P. L., Langendijk, J. A., Schuit, E., & Muijs, C. T. (2026). The challenge of informed consent: Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 220, Article 111575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575

@article{d861b0b7ab4c4bad86aacfffc682b312,

title = "The challenge of informed consent: Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias",

abstract = "Informed consent requirements can introduce significant selection bias. This note evaluates prospective versus retrospective consent models and the utility of propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias. While statistical adjustments mitigate the bias, upfront consent frameworks are essential for ensuring unbiased population estimates.",

author = "Frederiks, \{M. L.\} and Verhoeven, \{R. H.A.\} and \{van Laarhoven\}, \{H. W.M.\} and M. Berb{\'e}e and \{van Rossum\}, \{P. S.N.\} and Meijer, \{G. J.\} and H. R{\"u}tten and Hartogh, \{M. D.den\} and Nuyttens, \{J. J.\} and Wijnhoven, \{B. P.L.\} and Langendijk, \{J. A.\} and E. Schuit and Muijs, \{C. T.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2026 The Author(s)",

year = "2026",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575",

language = "English",

volume = "220",

journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",

issn = "0167-8140",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Frederiks, ML, Verhoeven, RHA, van Laarhoven, HWM, Berbée, M, van Rossum, PSN, Meijer, GJ, Rütten, H, Hartogh, MDD, Nuyttens, JJ, Wijnhoven, BPL, Langendijk, JA, Schuit, E & Muijs, CT 2026, 'The challenge of informed consent: Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias', Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 220, 111575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575

TY - JOUR

T1 - The challenge of informed consent

T2 - Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias

AU - Frederiks, M. L.

AU - Verhoeven, R. H.A.

AU - van Laarhoven, H. W.M.

AU - Berbée, M.

AU - van Rossum, P. S.N.

AU - Meijer, G. J.

AU - Rütten, H.

AU - Hartogh, M. D.den

AU - Nuyttens, J. J.

AU - Wijnhoven, B. P.L.

AU - Langendijk, J. A.

AU - Schuit, E.

AU - Muijs, C. T.

PY - 2026/7

Y1 - 2026/7

N2 - Informed consent requirements can introduce significant selection bias. This note evaluates prospective versus retrospective consent models and the utility of propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias. While statistical adjustments mitigate the bias, upfront consent frameworks are essential for ensuring unbiased population estimates.

AB - Informed consent requirements can introduce significant selection bias. This note evaluates prospective versus retrospective consent models and the utility of propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias. While statistical adjustments mitigate the bias, upfront consent frameworks are essential for ensuring unbiased population estimates.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105038420137

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2026.111575

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:105038420137

SN - 0167-8140

VL - 220

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

M1 - 111575

ER -

The challenge of informed consent: Propensity score weighting to prevent selection bias

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this