• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

体重修剪和倾向评分加权。

Weight trimming and propensity score weighting.

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2011 Mar 31;6(3):e18174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018174.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0018174
PMID:21483818
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3069059/
Abstract

Propensity score weighting is sensitive to model misspecification and outlying weights that can unduly influence results. The authors investigated whether trimming large weights downward can improve the performance of propensity score weighting and whether the benefits of trimming differ by propensity score estimation method. In a simulation study, the authors examined the performance of weight trimming following logistic regression, classification and regression trees (CART), boosted CART, and random forests to estimate propensity score weights. Results indicate that although misspecified logistic regression propensity score models yield increased bias and standard errors, weight trimming following logistic regression can improve the accuracy and precision of final parameter estimates. In contrast, weight trimming did not improve the performance of boosted CART and random forests. The performance of boosted CART and random forests without weight trimming was similar to the best performance obtainable by weight trimmed logistic regression estimated propensity scores. While trimming may be used to optimize propensity score weights estimated using logistic regression, the optimal level of trimming is difficult to determine. These results indicate that although trimming can improve inferences in some settings, in order to consistently improve the performance of propensity score weighting, analysts should focus on the procedures leading to the generation of weights (i.e., proper specification of the propensity score model) rather than relying on ad-hoc methods such as weight trimming.

摘要

倾向评分加权对模型的误设定和异常权重很敏感,这些权重可能会过度影响结果。作者研究了向下修剪大权重是否可以提高倾向评分加权的性能,以及修剪的好处是否因倾向评分估计方法而异。在一项模拟研究中,作者研究了以下方法的性能:逻辑回归、分类和回归树(CART)、提升 CART 和随机森林来估计倾向评分权重。结果表明,尽管逻辑回归倾向评分模型的误设定会导致偏差和标准误差增加,但逻辑回归后的权重修剪可以提高最终参数估计的准确性和精度。相比之下,权重修剪并没有提高提升 CART 和随机森林的性能。未经权重修剪的提升 CART 和随机森林的性能与使用逻辑回归估计的最佳修剪权重的性能相似。虽然修剪可以优化使用逻辑回归估计的倾向评分权重,但很难确定最佳修剪水平。这些结果表明,尽管修剪可以在某些情况下改善推断,但为了始终如一地提高倾向评分加权的性能,分析人员应专注于生成权重的程序(即正确指定倾向评分模型),而不是依赖于权重修剪等特定方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/64174ff80fba/pone.0018174.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/bef0624b40ee/pone.0018174.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/fb9f8057e3ed/pone.0018174.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/64174ff80fba/pone.0018174.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/bef0624b40ee/pone.0018174.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/fb9f8057e3ed/pone.0018174.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6ae9/3069059/64174ff80fba/pone.0018174.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Weight trimming and propensity score weighting.体重修剪和倾向评分加权。
PLoS One. 2011 Mar 31;6(3):e18174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018174.
2
Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning.使用机器学习改进倾向评分加权。
Stat Med. 2010 Feb 10;29(3):337-46. doi: 10.1002/sim.3782.
3
Propensity Score Weighting and Trimming Strategies for Reducing Variance and Bias of Treatment Effect Estimates: A Simulation Study.倾向评分加权和修剪策略可减少治疗效果估计的方差和偏差:一项模拟研究。
Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Aug 1;190(8):1659-1670. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab041.
4
Propensity score weighting under limited overlap and model misspecification.倾向评分加权在有限重叠和模型误设定下。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Dec;29(12):3721-3756. doi: 10.1177/0962280220940334. Epub 2020 Jul 21.
5
Multinomial Extension of Propensity Score Trimming Methods: A Simulation Study.倾向得分修剪方法的多项扩展:一项模拟研究。
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Mar 1;188(3):609-616. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy263.
6
The role of prediction modeling in propensity score estimation: an evaluation of logistic regression, bCART, and the covariate-balancing propensity score.预测建模在倾向评分估计中的作用:逻辑回归、bCART 和协变量平衡倾向评分的评估。
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Sep 15;180(6):645-55. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu181. Epub 2014 Aug 20.
7
Addressing Extreme Propensity Scores via the Overlap Weights.通过重叠权重解决极端倾向评分。
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jan 1;188(1):250-257. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy201.
8
Addressing Extreme Propensity Scores in Estimating Counterfactual Survival Functions via the Overlap Weights.通过重叠权重解决极端倾向评分对反事实生存函数估计的影响。
Am J Epidemiol. 2022 May 20;191(6):1140-1151. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac043.
9
Adjusting for Confounding in Early Postlaunch Settings: Going Beyond Logistic Regression Models.调整上市后早期阶段的混杂因素:超越逻辑回归模型
Epidemiology. 2016 Jan;27(1):133-42. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000388.
10
Parametric and nonparametric propensity score estimation in multilevel observational studies.多层次观察性研究中的参数和非参数倾向评分估计。
Stat Med. 2023 Oct 15;42(23):4147-4176. doi: 10.1002/sim.9852. Epub 2023 Aug 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Calibrated and Conformal Propensity Scores for Causal Effect Estimation.用于因果效应估计的校准共形倾向得分
Uncertain Artif Intell. 2024 Jul;2024:1083-1111. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
2
Intersectional impact of cash transfers on AIDS among 12.3 million Brazilian women.现金转移对1230万巴西女性艾滋病影响的交叉性研究
Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Aug 11. doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02278-3.
3
Risky relationships: Secondhand harms and health indicators associated with college students' relationships with heavy drinkers.危险关系:与大学生和酗酒者的关系相关的二手伤害及健康指标

本文引用的文献

1
Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.因果推断的匹配方法:综述与展望
Stat Sci. 2010 Feb 1;25(1):1-21. doi: 10.1214/09-STS313.
2
Propensity score estimation: neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression.倾向评分估计:神经网络、支持向量机、决策树(CART)和元分类器作为逻辑回归的替代方法。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):826-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.020.
3
Clopidogrel use and clinical events after drug-eluting stent implantation: findings from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 2025 Jul;49(7):1576-1586. doi: 10.1111/acer.70083. Epub 2025 Jun 13.
4
Instability of estimation results based on caliper matching with propensity scores.基于卡尺匹配倾向得分的估计结果的不稳定性。
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 6;20(6):e0325317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325317. eCollection 2025.
5
The impact of providing intensive care and practical help in mid-life on employment transitions in Europe.在欧洲,中年时期提供重症护理和实际帮助对就业转型的影响。
Eur J Ageing. 2025 May 11;22(1):21. doi: 10.1007/s10433-025-00857-x.
6
The risk and cost of drug-drug interactions in an older population acutely admitted to hospital in Ireland.爱尔兰老年急性入院患者药物相互作用的风险与成本。
Int J Clin Pharm. 2025 Apr 10. doi: 10.1007/s11096-025-01907-1.
7
School-age outcomes among IVF and ICSI-conceived children: a causal inference analysis using linked population-wide data.体外受精和卵胞浆内单精子注射受孕儿童的学龄期结局:一项使用全人群关联数据的因果推断分析。
BMC Med. 2025 Apr 1;23(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-03963-w.
8
Assessing racial disparities in healthcare expenditure using generalized propensity score weighting.使用广义倾向得分加权法评估医疗保健支出中的种族差异。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Mar 7;25(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02508-2.
9
Tranexamic acid is associated with post-injury mortality in a resource-limited trauma system: Findings from the epidemiology and outcomes of prolonged trauma care cohort study.在资源有限的创伤系统中,氨甲环酸与伤后死亡率相关:长期创伤护理队列研究的流行病学及结果发现
Transfusion. 2025 May;65 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S276-S287. doi: 10.1111/trf.18171. Epub 2025 Feb 28.
10
Digital technologies and performance incentives: evidence from businesses in the Swiss economy.数字技术与绩效激励:来自瑞士经济中企业的证据。
Swiss J Econ Stat. 2025;161(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s41937-024-00132-3. Epub 2025 Jan 30.
氯吡格雷的使用与药物洗脱支架置入术后的临床事件:来自 HealthCore 综合研究数据库的研究结果。
Am Heart J. 2010 Mar;159(3):462-470.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.11.031.
4
Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning.使用机器学习改进倾向评分加权。
Stat Med. 2010 Feb 10;29(3):337-46. doi: 10.1002/sim.3782.
5
Model Averaging Methods for Weight Trimming.用于权重修剪的模型平均方法。
J Off Stat. 2008 Dec 1;24(4):517-540.
6
The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies.在观察性研究中,不同倾向评分方法在治疗和未治疗受试者之间平衡测量协变量的相对能力。
Med Decis Making. 2009 Nov-Dec;29(6):661-77. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09341755. Epub 2009 Aug 14.
7
Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: a practical guide and simulated example.非随机研究的平均因果效应:实用指南与模拟示例。
Psychol Methods. 2008 Dec;13(4):279-313. doi: 10.1037/a0014268.
8
The link between neighborhood poverty and health: context or composition?邻里贫困与健康之间的联系:背景还是构成因素?
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Sep 15;168(6):611-9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn182. Epub 2008 Aug 6.
9
Adolescent cannabis problems and young adult depression: male-female stratified propensity score analyses.青少年大麻问题与青年抑郁症:按性别分层的倾向得分分析
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Sep 15;168(6):592-601. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn184. Epub 2008 Aug 6.
10
Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models.构建边际结构模型的逆概率权重。
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Sep 15;168(6):656-64. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn164. Epub 2008 Aug 5.