ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
Causal Forests Versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to Adjust for Cluster-Level Confounding: A Parametric and Plasmode Simulation Study Based on US Hospital Electronic Health Record Data.
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 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.
- Causal Forests Versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to Adjust for Cluster-Level Confounding: A Parametric and Plasmode Simulation Study Based on US Hospital Electronic Health Record Data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid innovation and new regulations increase the need for post-marketing surveillance of implantable devices. However, complex multi-level confounding related to patient-level and surgeon or hospital covariates hampers observational studies of risks and benefits. We conducted two simulation studies to compare the performance of Causal Forests (CF) versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding bias in the presence of strong surgeon impact on treatment allocation.
methodsTwo Monte Carlo simulation studies were carried out: (1) Parametric simulations with patients nested in clusters (ratio 10:1, 50:1, 100:1, 200:1, 500:1) and sample size n = 10 000 were conducted with patient and cluster level confounders; (2) Plasmode simulations generated from a cohort of 9981 patients admitted for pancreatectomy between 2015 and 2019 from the US PINC AT hospital research database. Different CF algorithms and IPTW were used to estimate binary treatment effects.
resultsPerformance varied with the strength of cluster-level confounding. Under weak to moderate surgeon influence, CF and IPTW performed similarly. When confounding was strong (OR = 2.5), CF reduced bias compared with IPTW: in parametric simulations, relative bias averaged 11.2% for CF versus 19.9% for IPTW, with similar advantages observed in plasmode simulations.
conclusionsCF shows promise as a method for estimating treatment effects in scenarios where cluster-level confounding strongly impacts treatment allocation. More research is needed to guide its use.
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.