Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39529889›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024

Machine learning methods for propensity and disease risk score estimation in high-dimensional data: a plasmode simulation and real-world data cohort analysis.

Yuchen Guo, Victoria Y Strauss, Martí Català, Annika M Jödicke, Sara Khalid, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Yuchen GuoPharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Centre of Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Victoria Y StraussBoehringer-Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany.
Martí CatalàPharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Centre of Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Annika M JödickePharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Centre of Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sara KhalidPharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Centre of Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Daniel Prieto-AlhambraPharmaco- and Device Epidemiology Group, Centre of Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Machine learning (ML) methods are promising and scalable alternatives for propensity score (PS) estimation, but their comparative performance in disease risk score (DRS) estimation remains unexplored. Methods: We used real-world data comparing antihypertensive users to non-users with 69 negative control outcomes, and plasmode simulations to study the performance of ML methods in PS and DRS estimation. We conducted a cohort study using UK primary care records. Further, we conducted a plasmode simulation with synthetic treatment and outcome mimicking empirical data distributions. We compared four PS and DRS estimation methods: 1. Reference: Logistic regression including clinically chosen confounders. 2. Logistic regression with L1 regularisation (LASSO). 3. Multi-layer perceptron (MLP). 4. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XgBoost). Covariate balance, coverage of the null effect of negative control outcomes (real-world data) and bias based on the absolute difference between observed and true effects (for plasmode) were estimated. 632,201 antihypertensive users and nonusers were included. Results: ML methods outperformed the reference method for PS estimation in some scenarios, both in terms of covariate balance and coverage/bias. Specifically, XgBoost achieved the best performance. DRS-based methods performed worse than PS in all tested scenarios. Discussion: We found that ML methods could be reliable alternatives for PS estimation. ML-based DRS methods performed worse than PS ones, likely given the rarity of outcomes.

Indexed as

disease risk scoresmachine learningnegative controlobservational researchpropensity scorestreatment effect

Identifiers

PMID39529889
PMCPMC11551032

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.