ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025
Robust propensity score estimation via loss function calibration.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Latent Variable Approach for Causal Effect Estimation Under Misclassified Treatment Assignment.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Propensity score estimation is often used as a preliminary step to estimate the average treatment effect with observational data. Nevertheless, misspecification of propensity score models undermines the validity of effect estimates in subsequent analyses. Prediction-based machine learning algorithms are increasingly used to estimate propensity scores to allow for more complex relationships between covariates. However, these approaches may not necessarily achieve covariates balancing. We propose a calibration-based method to better incorporate covariate balance properties in a general modeling framework. Specifically, we calibrate the loss function by adding a covariate imbalance penalty to standard parametric (e.g. logistic regressions) or machine learning models (e.g. neural networks). Our approach may mitigate the impact of model misspecification by explicitly taking into account the covariate balance in the propensity score estimation process. The empirical results show that the proposed method is robust to propensity score model misspecification. The integration of loss function calibration improves the balance of covariates and reduces the root-mean-square error of causal effect estimates. When the propensity score model is misspecified, the neural-network-based model yields the best estimator with less bias and smaller variance as compared to other methods considered.
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.