Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36263918›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2022

Flexible propensity score estimation strategies for clustered data in observational studies.

Ting-Hsuan Chang, Trang Quynh Nguyen, Youjin Lee, John W Jackson, Elizabeth A Stuart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Assessing Covariate Balance with Small Sample Sizes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Estimating the causal effects of multiple intermittent treatments with application to COVID-19.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2023
    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.

Ting-Hsuan ChangDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6002-2947
Trang Quynh NguyenDepartment of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Youjin LeeDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7299-935X
John W JacksonDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Elizabeth A StuartDepartment of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Using an innovative quality improvement process to increase delivery of evidenced-based CVD risk factor care in community mental health organizationsP50MH115842 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Gail L. Daumit · 2018 to 2026
$16.2M
Combining data sources to identify effect moderation for personalized mental health treatmentR01MH126856 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI STUART, ELIZABETH A. · 2021 to 2024
$1.7M
NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH115842NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH126856
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing studies have suggested superior performance of nonparametric machine learning over logistic regression for propensity score estimation. However, it is unclear whether the advantages of nonparametric propensity score modeling are carried to settings where there is clustering of individuals, especially when there is unmeasured cluster-level confounding. In this work we examined the performance of logistic regression (all main effects), Bayesian additive regression trees and generalized boosted modeling for propensity score weighting in clustered settings, with the clustering being accounted for by including either cluster indicators or random intercepts. We simulated data for three hypothetical observational studies of varying sample and cluster sizes. Confounders were generated at both levels, including a cluster-level confounder that is unobserved in the analyses. A binary treatment and a continuous outcome were generated based on seven scenarios with varying relationships between the treatment and confounders (linear and additive, nonlinear/nonadditive, nonadditive with the unobserved cluster-level confounder). Results suggest that when the sample and cluster sizes are large, nonparametric propensity score estimation may provide better covariate balance, bias reduction, and 95% confidence interval coverage, regardless of the degree of nonlinearity or nonadditivity in the true propensity score model. When the sample or cluster sizes are small, however, nonparametric approaches may become more vulnerable to unmeasured cluster-level confounding and thus may not be a better alternative to multilevel logistic regression. We applied the methods to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health data, estimating the effect of team sports participation during adolescence on adulthood depressive symptoms.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreAdolescentAdultBayes TheoremBiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumansLogistic ModelsLongitudinal Studiesclusteringmachine learningobservational studiespropensity score weightingunmeasured confounder

Identifiers

PMID36263918
PMCPMC9996644

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.