ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Performance of Cross-Validated Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- STROBE-causal machine learning for the human microbiome: systematic review on methodological innovations and validation frameworks.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Correlation does not equal causation: the imperative of causal inference in machine learning models for immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Causal Effect Estimation With TMLE: Handling Missing Data and Near Violations of Positivity.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- Performance of Cross-Validated Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- How Effective Are Machine Learning and Doubly Robust Estimators in Incorporating High-Dimensional Proxies to Reduce Residual Confounding?Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced methods for causal inference, such as targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), require specific convergence rates and the Donsker class condition for valid statistical estimation and inference. In situations where there is no differentiability due to data sparsity or near-positivity violations, the Donsker class condition is violated. In such instances, the bias of the targeted estimand is inflated, and its variance is anti-conservative, leading to poor coverage. Cross-validation of the TMLE algorithm (CVTMLE) is a straightforward, yet effective way to ensure efficiency, especially in settings where the Donsker class condition is violated, such as random or near-positivity violations. We aim to investigate the performance of CVTMLE compared to TMLE in various settings.
methodsWe utilized the data-generating mechanism described in Leger et al. (2022) to run a Monte Carlo experiment under different Donsker class violations. Then, we evaluated the respective statistical performances of TMLE and CVTMLE with different super learner libraries, with and without regression tree methods.
resultsWe found that CVTMLE vastly improves confidence interval coverage without adversely affecting bias, particularly in settings with small sample sizes and near-positivity violations. Furthermore, incorporating regression trees using standard TMLE with ensemble super learner-based initial estimates increases bias and reduces variance, leading to invalid statistical inference.
conclusionsWe show through simulations that CVTMLE is much less sensitive to the choice of the super learner library and thereby provides better estimation and inference in cases where the super learner library uses more flexible candidates and is prone to overfitting.
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.