ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2018
Collaborative targeted maximum likelihood estimation for variable importance measure: Illustration for functional outcome prediction in mild traumatic brain injuries.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Semiparametric efficient estimation of small genetic effects in large-scale population cohorts.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Causal inference from observational data in neurosurgical studies: a mini-review and tutorial.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
- Evaluating the robustness of targeted maximum likelihood estimators via realistic simulations in nutrition intervention trials.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Pre-injury Comorbidities Are Associated With Functional Impairment and Post-concussive Symptoms at 3- and 6-Months After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
- Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for a binary treatment: A tutorial.Statistics in medicine · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Standard statistical practice used for determining the relative importance of competing causes of disease typically relies on ad hoc methods, often byproducts of machine learning procedures (stepwise regression, random forest, etc.). Causal inference framework and data-adaptive methods may help to tailor parameters to match the clinical question and free one from arbitrary modeling assumptions. Our focus is on implementations of such semiparametric methods for a variable importance measure (VIM). We propose a fully automated procedure for VIM based on collaborative targeted maximum likelihood estimation (cTMLE), a method that optimizes the estimate of an association in the presence of potentially numerous competing causes. We applied the approach to data collected from traumatic brain injury patients, specifically a prospective, observational study including three US Level-1 trauma centers. The primary outcome was a disability score (Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE)) collected three months post-injury. We identified clinically important predictors among a set of risk factors using a variable importance analysis based on targeted maximum likelihood estimators (TMLE) and on cTMLE. Via a parametric bootstrap, we demonstrate that the latter procedure has the potential for robust automated estimation of variable importance measures based upon machine-learning algorithms. The cTMLE estimator was associated with substantially less positivity bias as compared to TMLE and larger coverage of the 95% CI. This study confirms the power of an automated cTMLE procedure that can target model selection via machine learning to estimate VIMs in complicated, high-dimensional data.
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.