Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31436859›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2019

Using longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation in complex settings with dynamic interventions.

M Schomaker, M A Luque-Fernandez, V Leroy, M A Davies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Longitudinal regimes of arts and cultural engagement and frailty among older adults in the United States: a g-formula approach.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

M SchomakerCentre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology & Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-8475-0591
M A Luque-FernandezBiomedical Research Institute of Granada - Noncommunicable and Cancer Epidemiology Group, Andalusian School of Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6683-5164
V LeroyINSERM, Toulouse, France.
M A DaviesCentre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology & Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

Observational Antiretroviral Studies In Southern Africa (OASIS) CollaborationU01AI069924 · NIAID · UNIVERSITAT BERN · PI Cleophas Chimbetete, Mary-Ann Davies · 2006 to 2026
$55.9M
WADA (West Africa Database on Antiretroviral Therapy) CollaborationU01AI069919 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF BORDEAUX II · PI Didier Koumavi Ekouevi, Antoine Jaquet · 2006 to 2026
$29.9M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI069919NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI069924NIH HHS U01AI069919
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation (LTMLE) has very rarely been used to estimate dynamic treatment effects in the context of time-dependent confounding affected by prior treatment when faced with long follow-up times, multiple time-varying confounders, and complex associational relationships simultaneously. Reasons for this include the potential computational burden, technical challenges, restricted modeling options for long follow-up times, and limited practical guidance in the literature. However, LTMLE has desirable asymptotic properties, ie, it is doubly robust, and can yield valid inference when used in conjunction with machine learning. It also has the advantage of easy-to-calculate analytic standard errors in contrast to the g-formula, which requires bootstrapping. We use a topical and sophisticated question from HIV treatment research to show that LTMLE can be used successfully in complex realistic settings, and we compare results to competing estimators. Our example illustrates the following practical challenges common to many epidemiological studies: (1) long follow-up time (30 months); (2) gradually declining sample size; (3) limited support for some intervention rules of interest; (4) a high-dimensional set of potential adjustment variables, increasing both the need and the challenge of integrating appropriate machine learning methods; and (5) consideration of collider bias. Our analyses, as well as simulations, shed new light on the application of LTMLE in complex and realistic settings: We show that (1) LTMLE can yield stable and good estimates, even when confronted with small samples and limited modeling options; (2) machine learning utilized with a small set of simple learners (if more complex ones cannot be fitted) can outperform a single, complex model, which is tailored to incorporate prior clinical knowledge; and (3) performance can vary considerably depending on interventions and their support in the data, and therefore critical quality checks should accompany every LTMLE analysis. We provide guidance for the practical application of LTMLE.

Indexed as

Likelihood FunctionsAnti-HIV AgentsCausalityChildComputer SimulationConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHIV InfectionsHumansSample SizeAnti-HIV Agentscausal inferenceg-methodsHIV treatmentTMLE

Identifiers

PMID31436859
PMCPMC6800798

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.