ArticleJAMIA open2025
Accurate treatment effect estimation using inverse probability of treatment weighting with deep learning.
Article in JAMIA open, 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.
- Harnessing Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) for Environmental Epidemiology: A Narrative Review.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Observational data have been actively used to estimate treatment effect, driven by the growing availability of electronic health records (EHRs). However, EHRs typically consist of longitudinal records, often introducing time-dependent confounding that hinder the unbiased estimation of treatment effect. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) is a widely used propensity score method since it provides unbiased treatment effect estimation and its derivation is straightforward. In this study, we aim to utilize IPTW to estimate treatment effect in the presence of time-dependent confounding using claims records. Materials and Methods: Previous studies have utilized propensity score methods with features derived from claims records through feature processing, which generally requires domain knowledge and additional resources to extract information to accurately estimate propensity scores. Deep learning, particularly using deep sequence models such as recurrent neural networks and Transformer, has demonstrated good performance in modeling EHRs for various downstream tasks. We propose that these deep sequence models can provide accurate IPTW estimation of treatment effect by directly estimating the propensity scores from claims records without the need for feature processing. Results: Comprehensive evaluations on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets demonstrate that IPTW treatment effect estimation using deep sequence models consistently outperforms baseline approaches, including logistic regression and multilayer perceptrons, combined with feature processing. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that deep sequence models consistently outperform traditional approaches in estimating treatment effects, particularly under time-dependent confounding. Moreover, Transformer-based models offer interpretability by assigning higher attention weights to relevant confounders, even when prior domain knowledge is limited. Conclusion: Deep sequence models enable accurate treatment effect estimation through IPTW without the need for feature processing.
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.