When does adjusting covariate under randomization help? A comparative study on current practices.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-10-26 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02375-3
Ying Gao, Yi Liu, Roland Matsouaka
{"title":"When does adjusting covariate under randomization help? A comparative study on current practices.","authors":"Ying Gao, Yi Liu, Roland Matsouaka","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02375-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aim to thoroughly compare past and current methods that leverage baseline covariate information to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) using data from of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We especially focus on their performance, efficiency gain, and power.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared 6 different methods using extensive Monte-Carlo simulation studies: the unadjusted estimator, i.e., analysis of variance (ANOVA), the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), the analysis of heterogeneous covariance (ANHECOVA), the inverse probability weighting (IPW), the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW), and the overlap weighting (OW) as well as the augmented overlap weighting (AOW) estimators. The performance of these methods is assessed using the relative bias (RB), the root mean square error (RMSE), the model-based standard error (SE) estimation, the coverage probability (CP), and the statistical power.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Even with a well-executed randomization, adjusting for baseline covariates by an appropriate method can be a good practice. When the outcome model(s) used in a covariate-adjusted method is closer to the correctly specified model(s), the efficiency and power gained can be substantial. We also found that most covariate-adjusted methods can suffer from the high-dimensional curse, i.e., when the number of covariates is relatively high compared to the sample size, they can have poor performance (along with lower efficiency) in estimating ATE. Among the different methods we compared, the OW performs the best overall with smaller RMSEs and smaller model-based SEs, which also result in higher power when the true effect is non-zero. Furthermore, the OW is more robust when dealing with the high-dimensional issue.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To effectively use covariate adjustment methods, understanding their nature is important for practical investigators. Our study shows that outcome model misspecification and high-dimension are two main burdens in a covariate adjustment method to gain higher efficiency and power. When these factors are appropriately considered, e.g., performing some variable selections if the data dimension is high before adjusting covariate, these methods are expected to be useful.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"250"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11514882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02375-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We aim to thoroughly compare past and current methods that leverage baseline covariate information to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) using data from of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We especially focus on their performance, efficiency gain, and power.

Methods: We compared 6 different methods using extensive Monte-Carlo simulation studies: the unadjusted estimator, i.e., analysis of variance (ANOVA), the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), the analysis of heterogeneous covariance (ANHECOVA), the inverse probability weighting (IPW), the augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW), and the overlap weighting (OW) as well as the augmented overlap weighting (AOW) estimators. The performance of these methods is assessed using the relative bias (RB), the root mean square error (RMSE), the model-based standard error (SE) estimation, the coverage probability (CP), and the statistical power.

Results: Even with a well-executed randomization, adjusting for baseline covariates by an appropriate method can be a good practice. When the outcome model(s) used in a covariate-adjusted method is closer to the correctly specified model(s), the efficiency and power gained can be substantial. We also found that most covariate-adjusted methods can suffer from the high-dimensional curse, i.e., when the number of covariates is relatively high compared to the sample size, they can have poor performance (along with lower efficiency) in estimating ATE. Among the different methods we compared, the OW performs the best overall with smaller RMSEs and smaller model-based SEs, which also result in higher power when the true effect is non-zero. Furthermore, the OW is more robust when dealing with the high-dimensional issue.

Conclusion: To effectively use covariate adjustment methods, understanding their nature is important for practical investigators. Our study shows that outcome model misspecification and high-dimension are two main burdens in a covariate adjustment method to gain higher efficiency and power. When these factors are appropriately considered, e.g., performing some variable selections if the data dimension is high before adjusting covariate, these methods are expected to be useful.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
随机化下的协变量调整何时有用?现行做法比较研究
目的:我们旨在全面比较过去和当前利用基线协变量信息来估计平均治疗效果(ATE)的方法,这些方法使用的是随机临床试验(RCT)的数据。我们尤其关注它们的性能、增效和功率:我们通过大量的蒙特卡洛模拟研究比较了 6 种不同的方法:未调整估计器,即方差分析 (ANOVA)、协方差分析 (ANCOVA)、异质协方差分析 (ANHECOVA)、逆概率加权 (IPW)、增强逆概率加权 (AIPW)、重叠加权 (OW) 以及增强重叠加权 (AOW) 估计器。使用相对偏差 (RB)、均方根误差 (RMSE)、基于模型的标准误差 (SE) 估计、覆盖概率 (CP) 和统计功率来评估这些方法的性能:结果:即使随机化执行得很好,用适当的方法调整基线协变量也是一种很好的做法。当协变量调整方法中使用的结果模型更接近于正确指定的模型时,所获得的效率和功率会非常可观。我们还发现,大多数协变量调整方法都会受到高维诅咒的影响,也就是说,当协变量的数量与样本量相比相对较多时,它们在估计 ATE 时的表现会较差(同时效率也较低)。在我们比较过的不同方法中,OW 的总体表现最好,它的均方根误差和基于模型的 SE 都较小,当真实效应不为零时,OW 的功率也较高。此外,OW 在处理高维问题时更为稳健:要想有效地使用协变量调整方法,了解其本质对实际研究者来说非常重要。我们的研究表明,要想获得更高的效率和威力,结果模型的不规范和高维是协变量调整方法的两个主要负担。如果能适当考虑这些因素,例如在调整协变量之前对高维数据进行一些变量选择,那么这些方法就有望发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
Non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias of period-specific and conventional hazard ratio in randomized controlled trials. Exploring the characteristics, methods and reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study. The role of the estimand framework in the analysis of patient-reported outcomes in single-arm trials: a case study in oncology. Cardinality matching versus propensity score matching for addressing cluster-level residual confounding in implantable medical device and surgical epidemiology: a parametric and plasmode simulation study. Establishing a machine learning dementia progression prediction model with multiple integrated data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1