ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
How Effective Are Machine Learning and Doubly Robust Estimators in Incorporating High-Dimensional Proxies to Reduce Residual Confounding?
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of polyethylene type with revision and dislocation risk following primary total hip arthroplasty: a population-based cohort study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- DARS2 serves as an independent prognostic factor and participates in multiple biological processes in bladder urothelial carcinoma.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Finding the Optimal Number of Splits and Repetitions in Double Cross-Fitting Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimators.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResidual confounding presents a persistent challenge in observational studies, particularly in high-dimensional settings. High-dimensional proxy adjustment methods, such as the high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS), are widely used to address confounding bias by incorporating proxies for unmeasured confounders. Extensions of hdPS have integrated machine learning, such as LASSO and super learner (SL), and doubly robust estimators, such as targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). However, the comparative performance of these methods, especially under different learner configurations and high-dimensional proxies, remains unclear.
methodWe conducted plasmode simulations to evaluate the performance of standard methods, SL, TMLE, and double cross-fit TMLE (DC-TMLE) under varying exposure and outcome prevalence scenarios. Learner libraries included: 1 learner (logistic regression), 3 learners (logistic regression, MARS, and LASSO), and 4 learners (adding XGBoost, a non-Donsker learner). Metrics included bias, coverage, and variability.
resultsMethods without proxies exhibited the highest bias and poorest coverage, highlighting the critical role of proxies in confounding adjustment. Standard methods incorporating high-dimensional proxies showed robust performance, achieving low bias and near-nominal coverage. TMLE and DC-TMLE reduced bias but exhibited worse coverage compared to standard methods, particularly with larger learner libraries. Notably, DC-TMLE, expected to address under-coverage issues, failed to perform adequately in high-dimensional settings with non-Donsker learners, further emphasizing the instability introduced by complex libraries.
conclusionOur findings underscore the utility of high-dimensional proxies in standard methods and the importance of tailoring learner configurations in SL and TMLE to ensure reliable confounding adjustment in high-dimensional contexts.
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.