ArticleResearch square2026
Beyond Single-Score Matching: A Two-Dimensional Propensity Score Method for Mixed Covariate Types.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Propensity score matching (PSM) reduces confounding bias in observational studies, yet traditional single-score approaches assume linear covariate-treatment relationships. This assumption often fails when applied to complex electronic health record data that contain mixed categorical and continuous variables and nonlinear interactions. We introduce two-dimensional PSM (2D-PSM), which estimates separate propensity scores for categorical and numerical confounders and then performs matching in two-dimensional space under an elliptical caliper constraint. We compared 2D-PSM with traditional single-score PSM using five machine learning classifiers across 5 real-world (RW) clinical datasets (n = 460 - 61,926) and 21 synthetic datasets (n = 10,000) with systematically varied confounder complexity and categorical-to-continuous ratios. Matching employed 1:1 greedy nearest-neighbor algorithm with adaptive calipers (0.1× to 0.5× propensity score interquartile range). Balance was assessed using univariate and multivariate metrics. In multivariate assessment and the smallest caliper (0.1), 2D-PSM performed comparably to conventional PSM on RW datasets and consistently outperformed it in synthetic data experiments. With larger calipers, 2D-PSM outperformed single-score methods in 85% of datasets. Our 2D-PSM approach provides superior multivariate balance for datasets with heterogeneous covariate types and complex interactions, particularly with moderate calipers.
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.