ArticleEmerging themes in epidemiology2016
Dimension reduction and shrinkage methods for high dimensional disease risk scores in historical data.
Article in Emerging themes in epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual Antiplatelet Therapy beyond 1 Year after a Myocardial Infarction Compared with Low-Dose Aspirin Alone: A 3-Year Follow-Up Cohort Study Within the French SNDS Nationwide Claims Database.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Article
- High-Dimensional Disease Risk Score for Dealing With Residual Confounding Bias in Estimating Treatment Effects With a Survival Outcome.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Review
- Confounder Adjustment Using the Disease Risk Score: A Proposal for Weighting Methods.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects.Scandinavian journal of statistics, theory and applications · 2023Article
- Surgical Complication Risk Factor Identification Using High-Dimensional Hospital Data: An Illustrative Example in Hemostasis-Related Complications.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2022Article
- On the aggregation of published prognostic scores for causal inference in observational studies.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
- The use of prognostic scores for causal inference with general treatment regimes.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Automated data-adaptive analytics for electronic healthcare data to study causal treatment effects.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Review
- The "Dry-Run" Analysis: A Method for Evaluating Risk Scores for Confounding Control.American journal of epidemiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultivariable confounder adjustment in comparative studies of newly marketed drugs can be limited by small numbers of exposed patients and even fewer outcomes. Disease risk scores (DRSs) developed in historical comparator drug users before the new drug entered the market may improve adjustment. However, in a high dimensional data setting, empirical selection of hundreds of potential confounders and modeling of DRS even in the historical cohort can lead to over-fitting and reduced predictive performance in the study cohort. We propose the use of combinations of dimension reduction and shrinkage methods to overcome this problem, and compared the performances of these modeling strategies for implementing high dimensional (hd) DRSs from historical data in two empirical study examples of newly marketed drugs versus comparator drugs after the new drugs' market entry-dabigatran versus warfarin for the outcome of major hemorrhagic events and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (coxibs) versus nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) for gastrointestinal bleeds.
resultsHistorical hdDRSs that included predefined and empirical outcome predictors with dimension reduction (principal component analysis; PCA) and shrinkage (lasso and ridge regression) approaches had higher c-statistics (0.66 for the PCA model, 0.64 for the PCA + ridge and 0.65 for the PCA + lasso models in the warfarin users) than an unreduced model (c-statistic, 0.54) in the dabigatran example. The odds ratio (OR) from PCA + lasso hdDRS-stratification [OR, 0.64; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.90] was closer to the benchmark estimate (0.93) from a randomized trial than the model without empirical predictors (OR, 0.58; 95 % CI 0.41-0.81). In the coxibs example, c-statistics of the hdDRSs in the nsNSAID initiators were 0.66 for the PCA model, 0.67 for the PCA + ridge model, and 0.67 for the PCA + lasso model; these were higher than for the unreduced model (c-statistic, 0.45), and comparable to the demographics + risk score model (c-statistic, 0.67).
conclusionshdDRSs using historical data with dimension reduction and shrinkage was feasible, and improved confounding adjustment in two studies of newly marketed medications.
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.