Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28273693›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2017

Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference.

Susan M Shortreed, Ashkan Ertefaie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing 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

70 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Outcome-Adaptive Lasso for Cox Proportional Hazards Model.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Estimating wage disparities using foundation models.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. IJMPR Didactic Paper: Weighting for Causal Inference in Mental Health Research.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Robust propensity score estimation via loss function calibration.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Susan M ShortreedBiostatistics Unit, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
Ashkan ErtefaieDepartment of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, U.S.A.

Funding

Transition to Long-Term Opioid Use Among Older Adults with Chronic PainR01AG034181 · NIA · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI VON KORFF, MICHAEL R · 2010 to 2014
$2.8M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG034181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methodological advancements, including propensity score methods, have resulted in improved unbiased estimation of treatment effects from observational data. Traditionally, a "throw in the kitchen sink" approach has been used to select covariates for inclusion into the propensity score, but recent work shows including unnecessary covariates can impact both the bias and statistical efficiency of propensity score estimators. In particular, the inclusion of covariates that impact exposure but not the outcome, can inflate standard errors without improving bias, while the inclusion of covariates associated with the outcome but unrelated to exposure can improve precision. We propose the outcome-adaptive lasso for selecting appropriate covariates for inclusion in propensity score models to account for confounding bias and maintaining statistical efficiency. This proposed approach can perform variable selection in the presence of a large number of spurious covariates, that is, covariates unrelated to outcome or exposure. We present theoretical and simulation results indicating that the outcome-adaptive lasso selects the propensity score model that includes all true confounders and predictors of outcome, while excluding other covariates. We illustrate covariate selection using the outcome-adaptive lasso, including comparison to alternative approaches, using simulated data and in a survey of patients using opioid therapy to manage chronic pain.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePropensity ScoreAnalgesics, OpioidBiasBiometryChronic PainComputer SimulationHumansAnalgesics, OpioidComparative effectivenessModel selectionObservational studiesPropensity score

Identifiers

PMID28273693
PMCPMC5591052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.