ArticleScientific reports2021
G-computation and machine learning for estimating the causal effects of binary exposure statuses on binary outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Workload, Mental Health and Healthcare Among Academics in Australia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Prophylactic noninvasive ventilation after extubation in high-risk patients without hypercapnia.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of direct tracheostomy on ventilator weaning in patients intubated for Guillain-Barré syndrome.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Methods Adjusting for Unmeasured Confounding Using Large Healthcare Databases: An Empirical Study Concerning Drugs Inducing Prematurity.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Machine learning prediction models for mode of delivery in prolonged pregnancies in Sweden.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Causal estimation of time-varying treatments in observational studies: a scoping review of methods, applications, and missing data practices.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- How to select predictive models for decision-making or causal inference.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Implementing TMLE in the presence of a continuous outcome.Research methods in medicine & health sciences · 2024Article
- Serum metabolomic signatures of fatty acid oxidation defects differentiate host-response subphenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome.Respiratory research · 2023Article
- Machine Learning for Causal Inference in Biological Networks: Perspectives of This Challenge.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2021Article
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
In clinical research, there is a growing interest in the use of propensity score-based methods to estimate causal effects. G-computation is an alternative because of its high statistical power. Machine learning is also increasingly used because of its possible robustness to model misspecification. In this paper, we aimed to propose an approach that combines machine learning and G-computation when both the outcome and the exposure status are binary and is able to deal with small samples. We evaluated the performances of several methods, including penalized logistic regressions, a neural network, a support vector machine, boosted classification and regression trees, and a super learner through simulations. We proposed six different scenarios characterised by various sample sizes, numbers of covariates and relationships between covariates, exposure statuses, and outcomes. We have also illustrated the application of these methods, in which they were used to estimate the efficacy of barbiturates prescribed during the first 24 h of an episode of intracranial hypertension. In the context of GC, for estimating the individual outcome probabilities in two counterfactual worlds, we reported that the super learner tended to outperform the other approaches in terms of both bias and variance, especially for small sample sizes. The support vector machine performed well, but its mean bias was slightly higher than that of the super learner. In the investigated scenarios, G-computation associated with the super learner was a performant method for drawing causal inferences, even from small sample sizes.
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.