ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2016
Double robust and efficient estimation of a prognostic model for events in the presence of dependent censoring.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- How estimating nuisance parameters can reduce the variance (with consistent variance estimation).Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- MULTIPLY ROBUST ESTIMATORS OF CAUSAL EFFECTS FOR SURVIVAL OUTCOMES.Scandinavian journal of statistics, theory and applications · 2022Article
- Evaluating the robustness of targeted maximum likelihood estimators via realistic simulations in nutrition intervention trials.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Doubly robust estimator of risk in the presence of censoring dependent on time-varying covariates: application to a primary prevention trial for coronary events with pravastatin.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Using longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation in complex settings with dynamic interventions.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Double Robust Efficient Estimators of Longitudinal Treatment Effects: Comparative Performance in Simulations and a Case Study.The international journal of biostatistics · 2019Article
- Introduction to Double Robust Methods for Incomplete Data.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In longitudinal data arising from observational or experimental studies, dependent subject drop-out is a common occurrence. If the goal is estimation of the parameters of a marginal complete-data model for the outcome, biased inference will result from fitting the model of interest with only uncensored subjects. For example, investigators are interested in estimating a prognostic model for clinical events in HIV-positive patients, under the counterfactual scenario in which everyone remained on ART (when in reality, only a subset had). Inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) is a popular method that relies on correct estimation of the probability of censoring to produce consistent estimation, but is an inefficient estimator in its standard form. We introduce sequentially augmented regression (SAR), an adaptation of the Bang and Robins (2005. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 61, 962-972.) method to estimate a complete-data prediction model, adjusting for longitudinal missing at random censoring. In addition, we propose a closely related non-parametric approach using targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE; van der Laan and Rubin, 2006. Targeted maximum likelihood learning. The International Journal of Biostatistics 2 (1), Article 11). We compare IPCW, SAR, and TMLE (implemented parametrically and with Super Learner) through simulation and the above-mentioned case study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.