Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34544367›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2021

Minimizing bias in massive multi-arm observational studies with BCAUS: balancing covariates automatically using supervision.

Chinmay Belthangady, Will Stedden, Beau Norgeot

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Designing a Consumer-centric Care Management Program by Prioritizing Interventions Using Deep Learning Causal Inference.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chinmay BelthangadyAnthem AI, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA.
Will SteddenAnthem AI, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA.
Beau NorgeotAnthem AI, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA. beau.norgeot@anthem.com.
Anthem (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational studies are increasingly being used to provide supplementary evidence in addition to Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) because they provide a scale and diversity of participants and outcomes that would be infeasible in an RCT. Additionally, they more closely reflect the settings in which the studied interventions will be applied in the future. Well-established propensity-score-based methods exist to overcome the challenges of working with observational data to estimate causal effects. These methods also provide quality assurance diagnostics to evaluate the degree to which bias has been removed and the estimates can be trusted. In large medical datasets it is common to find the same underlying health condition being treated with a variety of distinct drugs or drug combinations. Conventional methods require a manual iterative workflow, making them scale poorly to studies with many intervention arms. In such situations, automated causal inference methods that are compatible with traditional propensity-score-based workflows are highly desirable.

methodsWe introduce an automated causal inference method BCAUS, that features a deep-neural-network-based propensity model that is trained with a loss which penalizes both the incorrect prediction of the assigned treatment as well as the degree of imbalance between the inverse probability weighted covariates. The network is trained end-to-end by dynamically adjusting the loss term for each training batch such that the relative contributions from the two loss components are held fixed. Trained BCAUS models can be used in conjunction with traditional propensity-score-based methods to estimate causal treatment effects.

resultsWe tested BCAUS on the semi-synthetic Infant Health & Development Program dataset with a single intervention arm, and a real-world observational study of diabetes interventions with over 100,000 individuals spread across more than a hundred intervention arms. When compared against other recently proposed automated causal inference methods, BCAUS had competitive accuracy for estimating synthetic treatment effects and provided highly concordant estimates on the real-world dataset but was an order-of-magnitude faster.

conclusionsBCAUS is directly compatible with trusted protocols to estimate treatment effects and diagnose the quality of those estimates, while making the established approaches automatically scalable to an arbitrary number of simultaneous intervention arms without any need for manual iteration.

Indexed as

BiasCausalityHumansPropensity ScoreCausal inferenceDeep learningNeural networksObservational studies

Identifiers

PMID34544367
PMCPMC8454087
OpenAlexW3199901183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.