ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2025
Impact of Near-Positivity Violations on IPTW-Estimated Marginal Structural Survival Models With Time-Dependent Confounding.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Near-Positivity Violations on IPTW-Estimated Marginal Structural Survival Models With Time-Dependent Confounding.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Is Checking for Sequential Positivity Violations Getting You Down? Try sPoRT!Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In longitudinal observational studies, marginal structural models (MSMs) are used to analyze the causal effect of an exposure on the (time-to-event) outcome of interest, while accounting for exposure-affected time-dependent confounding. In the applied literature, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) has been widely adopted to estimate MSMs. An essential assumption for IPTW-based MSMs is positivity, which requires that, for any combination of measured confounders among individuals, there is a nonzero probability of receiving each treatment strategy. Positivity is crucial for valid causal inference through IPTW-based MSMs, but is often overlooked compared to confounding bias. Near-positivity violations, where certain treatments are theoretically possible but rarely observed due to randomness, are common in practical applications, particularly when the sample size is small, and they pose significant challenges for causal inference. This study investigates the impact of near-positivity violations on estimates from IPTW-based MSMs in survival analysis. Two algorithms are proposed for simulating longitudinal data from hazard-MSMs, accommodating near-positivity violations, a time-varying binary exposure, and a time-to-event outcome. Cases of near-positivity violations, where remaining unexposed is rare within certain confounder levels, are analyzed across various scenarios and weight truncation (WT) strategies. Through comprehensive simulations, this study shows that even minor near-positivity violations in longitudinal survival analyses can substantially destabilize IPTW-based estimators, inflating variance and bias, especially under aggressive WT. This work aims to serve as a critical warning against overlooking the positivity assumption or naively applying WT in causal studies using longitudinal observational data and IPTW.
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.