倾向分数法的局限性:模拟研究

Igor Mandel
{"title":"倾向分数法的局限性:模拟研究","authors":"Igor Mandel","doi":"10.3233/mas-241505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Propensity scores (PS) have been studied for many years, mostly in the aspect of confounder matching in the control and treatment groups. This work is devoted to the problem of estimation of the causal impact of the treatment versus control data in observational studies, and it is based on the simulation of thousands of scenarios and the measurement of the causal outcome. The generated treatment effect was added in simulation to the outcome, then it was retrieved using the PS and regression estimations, and the results were compared with the original known in the simulation treatment values. It is shown that only rarely the propensity score can successfully solve the causality problem, and the regressions often outperform the PS estimations. The results support the old philosophical critique of the counterfactual theory of causation from a statistical point of view.","PeriodicalId":35000,"journal":{"name":"Model Assisted Statistics and Applications","volume":"44 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limitations of the propensity scores approach: A simulation study\",\"authors\":\"Igor Mandel\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/mas-241505\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Propensity scores (PS) have been studied for many years, mostly in the aspect of confounder matching in the control and treatment groups. This work is devoted to the problem of estimation of the causal impact of the treatment versus control data in observational studies, and it is based on the simulation of thousands of scenarios and the measurement of the causal outcome. The generated treatment effect was added in simulation to the outcome, then it was retrieved using the PS and regression estimations, and the results were compared with the original known in the simulation treatment values. It is shown that only rarely the propensity score can successfully solve the causality problem, and the regressions often outperform the PS estimations. The results support the old philosophical critique of the counterfactual theory of causation from a statistical point of view.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Model Assisted Statistics and Applications\",\"volume\":\"44 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Model Assisted Statistics and Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/mas-241505\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Model Assisted Statistics and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/mas-241505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

倾向评分(PS)已被研究多年,主要是在对照组和治疗组混杂因素匹配方面。这项工作主要针对观察性研究中治疗数据与对照数据的因果影响估计问题,它基于成千上万种情况的模拟和因果结果的测量。在模拟过程中将生成的治疗效果添加到结果中,然后使用 PS 和回归估计法对其进行检索,并将结果与模拟中已知的原始治疗值进行比较。结果表明,只有在极少数情况下,倾向得分能成功解决因果关系问题,而回归结果往往优于倾向得分估计值。这些结果从统计学角度支持了对因果关系反事实理论的旧哲学批判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Limitations of the propensity scores approach: A simulation study
Propensity scores (PS) have been studied for many years, mostly in the aspect of confounder matching in the control and treatment groups. This work is devoted to the problem of estimation of the causal impact of the treatment versus control data in observational studies, and it is based on the simulation of thousands of scenarios and the measurement of the causal outcome. The generated treatment effect was added in simulation to the outcome, then it was retrieved using the PS and regression estimations, and the results were compared with the original known in the simulation treatment values. It is shown that only rarely the propensity score can successfully solve the causality problem, and the regressions often outperform the PS estimations. The results support the old philosophical critique of the counterfactual theory of causation from a statistical point of view.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Model Assisted Statistics and Applications
Model Assisted Statistics and Applications Mathematics-Applied Mathematics
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Model Assisted Statistics and Applications is a peer reviewed international journal. Model Assisted Statistics means an improvement of inference and analysis by use of correlated information, or an underlying theoretical or design model. This might be the design, adjustment, estimation, or analytical phase of statistical project. This information may be survey generated or coming from an independent source. Original papers in the field of sampling theory, econometrics, time-series, design of experiments, and multivariate analysis will be preferred. Papers of both applied and theoretical topics are acceptable.
期刊最新文献
Limitations of the propensity scores approach: A simulation study INAR(1) process with Poisson-transmuted record type exponential innovations Estimation of three-parameter Fréchet distribution for the number of days from drug administration to remission in small sample sizes Analysis of kidney infection data using correlated compound poisson frailty models Parametric analysis and model selection for economic evaluation of survival 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