Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26224070›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2016

Double robust and efficient estimation of a prognostic model for events in the presence of dependent censoring.

Mireille E Schnitzer, Judith J Lok, Ronald J Bosch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. MULTIPLY ROBUST ESTIMATORS OF CAUSAL EFFECTS FOR SURVIVAL OUTCOMES.Scandinavian journal of statistics, theory and applications · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Introduction to Double Robust Methods for Incomplete Data.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mireille E SchnitzerFaculté de pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada mireille.schnitzer@umontreal.ca.
Judith J LokThe Department of Biostatistics and the Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Ronald J BoschThe Department of Biostatistics and the Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Funding

Leadership and Operations Center (LOC), AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG); LOC 1/UM1AI068636 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Joseph J Eron, RAJESH T GANDHI · 2011 to 2026
$1073.1M
Statistical and Data Management Center (SDMC), AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG)UM1AI068634 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Marlene Ann Cooper, Michael David Hughes · 2011 to 2026
$246.6M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI038858 · NIAID · SOCIAL AND SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS, INC. · PI BENSON, CONSTANCE ANN · 1996 to 2008
$157.5M
AIDS Clinical Trials Group NetworkU01AI068636 · NIAID · SOCIAL AND SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS, INC. · PI KURITZKES, DANIEL R. · 2006 to 2010
$147.1M
STATISTICAL AND DATA MANAGEMENT CENTERU01AI038855 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI HUGHES, MICHAEL DAVID · 1996 to 2006
$78.1M
Statistical and Data Management Center for the AIDS Clinical Trials GroupU01AI068634 · NIAID · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HUGHES, MICHAEL DAVID · 2006 to 2010
$71.9M
Methods to find and model predictors of the causal effect of HAARTR01AI100762 · NIAID · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LOK, JUDITH JACQUELINE · 2012 to 2015
$1.3M
NIAID NIH HHS AI 38855NIAID NIH HHS AI 38858NIAID NIH HHS AI 68634NIAID NIH HHS AI 68636NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI100762NIAID NIH HHS R01AI100762NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI038855NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI038858NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI068634NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI068636NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068634NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068636
6 · The paper itself

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

Data Interpretation, StatisticalModels, StatisticalAnti-Retroviral AgentsHIV InfectionsHumansLikelihood FunctionsAnti-Retroviral AgentsInverse probability of censoring weightingLongitudinalMarginal structural modelPredictionTargeted maximum likelihood estimationTargeted minimum loss-based estimation

Identifiers

PMID26224070
PMCPMC4679073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.