ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2024
Combining Super Learner with high-dimensional propensity score to improve confounding adjustment: A real-world application in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacoepidemiology unpacked: a roadmap for junior researchers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Adherence to perindopril/amlodipine/atorvastatin combination according to the administration strategy.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigh-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) is a semiautomated method that leverages a vast number of covariates available in healthcare databases to improve confounding adjustment. A novel combined Super Learner (SL)-hdPS approach was proposed to assist with selecting the number of covariates for propensity score inclusion, and was found in plasmode simulation studies to improve bias reduction and precision compared to hdPS alone. However, the approach has not been examined in the applied setting.
methodsWe compared SL-hdPS's performance with that of several hdPS models, each with prespecified covariates and a different number of empirically-identified covariates, using a cohort study comparing real-world bleeding rates between ibrutinib- and bendamustine-rituximab (BR)-treated individuals with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart commercial claims database (2013-2020). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting for confounding adjustment and Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for bleeding outcomes. Parameters of interest included prespecified and empirically-identified covariate balance (absolute standardized difference [ASD] thresholds of <0.10 and <0.05) and outcome HR precision (95% confidence intervals).
resultsWe identified 2423 ibrutinib- and 1102 BR-treated individuals. Including >200 empirically-identified covariates in the hdPS model compromised covariate balance at both ASD thresholds. SL-hdPS balanced more covariates than all individual hdPS models at both ASD thresholds. The bleeding HR 95% confidence intervals were generally narrower with SL-hdPS than with individual hdPS models.
conclusionIn a real-world application, hdPS was sensitive to the number of covariates included, while use of SL for covariate selection resulted in improved covariate balance and possibly improved precision.
Indexed as
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.