Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36108816›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2022

Adjusting for indirectly measured confounding using large-scale propensity score.

Linying Zhang, Yixin Wang, Martijn J Schuemie, David M Blei, George Hripcsak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Evaluating large-scale propensity score adjustment when sample size is small.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Trust in Observational Research.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Accelerating real-world prediction and research in Alzheimer's: The M3AD study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A pipeline for enabling path-specific causal fairness in observational health data.Proceedings of the ... Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · 2026
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Semaglutide and diabetic retinopathy: an OHDSI network study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2025 · on this map
    Observational
  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

5 authors.

Linying ZhangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 W. 168th Street, PH20, New York, 10032, NY, USA.
Yixin WangDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, 1085 S University Ave, Ann Arbor, 48109, MI, USA.
Martijn J SchuemieJanssen Research and Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, Titusville, 08560, NJ, USA.
David M BleiDepartment of Statistics, Columbia University, 1255 Amsterdam Ave, New York, 10027, NY, USA; Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, 500 West 120 Street, Room 450 MC0401, New York, 10027, NY, USA.
George HripcsakDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 W. 168th Street, PH20, New York, 10032, NY, USA; Medical Informatics Services, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 622 W. 168th Street, PH20, New York, 10032, NY, USA. Electronic address: hripcsak@columbia.edu.

Funding

DISCOVERING AND APPLYING KNOWLEDGE IN CLINICAL DATABASESR01LM006910 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HRIPCSAK, GEORGE M · 2000 to 2023
$10.6M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM006910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confounding remains one of the major challenges to causal inference with observational data. This problem is paramount in medicine, where we would like to answer causal questions from large observational datasets like electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative claims. Modern medical data typically contain tens of thousands of covariates. Such a large set carries hope that many of the confounders are directly measured, and further hope that others are indirectly measured through their correlation with measured covariates. How can we exploit these large sets of covariates for causal inference? To help answer this question, this paper examines the performance of the large-scale propensity score (LSPS) approach on causal analysis of medical data. We demonstrate that LSPS may adjust for indirectly measured confounders by including tens of thousands of covariates that may be correlated with them. We present conditions under which LSPS removes bias due to indirectly measured confounders, and we show that LSPS may avoid bias when inadvertently adjusting for variables (like colliders) that otherwise can induce bias. We demonstrate the performance of LSPS with both simulated medical data and real medical data.

Indexed as

Confounding Factors, EpidemiologicBiasCausalityPropensity ScoreCausal inferenceElectronic health recordObservational studyPropensity scoreUnmeasured confounder

Identifiers

PMID36108816
PMCPMC9692203

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.