• 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

结果自适应套索:用于因果推断的变量选择

Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference.

作者信息

Shortreed Susan M, Ertefaie Ashkan

机构信息

Biostatistics Unit, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

出版信息

Biometrics. 2017 Dec;73(4):1111-1122. doi: 10.1111/biom.12679. Epub 2017 Mar 8.

DOI:10.1111/biom.12679
PMID:28273693
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5591052/
Abstract

Methodological advancements, including propensity score methods, have resulted in improved unbiased estimation of treatment effects from observational data. Traditionally, a "throw in the kitchen sink" approach has been used to select covariates for inclusion into the propensity score, but recent work shows including unnecessary covariates can impact both the bias and statistical efficiency of propensity score estimators. In particular, the inclusion of covariates that impact exposure but not the outcome, can inflate standard errors without improving bias, while the inclusion of covariates associated with the outcome but unrelated to exposure can improve precision. We propose the outcome-adaptive lasso for selecting appropriate covariates for inclusion in propensity score models to account for confounding bias and maintaining statistical efficiency. This proposed approach can perform variable selection in the presence of a large number of spurious covariates, that is, covariates unrelated to outcome or exposure. We present theoretical and simulation results indicating that the outcome-adaptive lasso selects the propensity score model that includes all true confounders and predictors of outcome, while excluding other covariates. We illustrate covariate selection using the outcome-adaptive lasso, including comparison to alternative approaches, using simulated data and in a survey of patients using opioid therapy to manage chronic pain.

摘要

方法学的进步,包括倾向得分方法,已使从观察性数据中对治疗效果进行无偏估计得到改善。传统上,一直采用“把所有东西都扔进厨房水槽”的方法来选择纳入倾向得分的协变量,但最近的研究表明,纳入不必要的协变量会影响倾向得分估计量的偏差和统计效率。特别是,纳入影响暴露但不影响结局的协变量,会在不改善偏差的情况下使标准误膨胀,而纳入与结局相关但与暴露无关的协变量则可提高精度。我们提出了结局自适应套索法,用于选择纳入倾向得分模型的合适协变量,以解决混杂偏差并保持统计效率。这种提出的方法可以在存在大量虚假协变量(即与结局或暴露无关的协变量)的情况下进行变量选择。我们给出了理论和模拟结果,表明结局自适应套索法选择的倾向得分模型包含所有真正的混杂因素和结局预测因子,同时排除其他协变量。我们使用结局自适应套索法展示协变量选择,包括与其他方法的比较,使用模拟数据以及在一项使用阿片类药物疗法治疗慢性疼痛的患者调查中进行展示。

相似文献

1
Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference.结果自适应套索:用于因果推断的变量选择
Biometrics. 2017 Dec;73(4):1111-1122. doi: 10.1111/biom.12679. Epub 2017 Mar 8.
2
Reader reaction to "Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference" by Shortreed and Ertefaie (2017).读者对 Shortreed 和 Ertefaie(2017)的“适应性lasso 方法:因果推断的变量选择”一文的反应。
Biometrics. 2023 Mar;79(1):514-520. doi: 10.1111/biom.13683. Epub 2022 May 31.
3
Variable selection for causal mediation analysis using LASSO-based methods.基于 LASSO 的方法进行因果中介分析的变量选择。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2021 Jun;30(6):1413-1427. doi: 10.1177/0962280221997505. Epub 2021 Mar 23.
4
High-dimensional generalized propensity score with application to omics data.高维广义倾向得分及其在组学数据中的应用。
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Nov 5;22(6). doi: 10.1093/bib/bbab331.
5
Collaborative-controlled LASSO for constructing propensity score-based estimators in high-dimensional data.基于协作控制 LASSO 的高维数据倾向评分匹配估计量的构建
Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Apr;28(4):1044-1063. doi: 10.1177/0962280217744588. Epub 2017 Dec 11.
6
Propensity score specification for optimal estimation of average treatment effect with binary response.基于二分类响应的最优平均处理效应估计的倾向评分规范。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Dec;29(12):3623-3640. doi: 10.1177/0962280220934847. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
7
Robust inference on the average treatment effect using the outcome highly adaptive lasso.利用高度适应的结局lasso 进行稳健的平均处理效应推断。
Biometrics. 2020 Mar;76(1):109-118. doi: 10.1111/biom.13121. Epub 2019 Oct 30.
8
Evaluation of propensity score methods for causal inference with high-dimensional covariates.高维协变量下因果推断的倾向评分方法评估。
Brief Bioinform. 2022 Jul 18;23(4). doi: 10.1093/bib/bbac227.
9
Propensity Score-Based Estimators With Multiple Error-Prone Covariates.基于倾向得分的多易错协变量估计量。
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jan 1;188(1):222-230. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy210.
10
Confounder selection strategies targeting stable treatment effect estimators.针对稳定治疗效果估计量的混杂因素选择策略。
Stat Med. 2021 Feb 10;40(3):607-630. doi: 10.1002/sim.8792. Epub 2020 Nov 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Variable selection for doubly robust causal inference.双重稳健因果推断的变量选择
Stat Interface. 2025;18(1):93-105. doi: 10.4310/sii.241023040813. Epub 2024 Oct 22.
2
Associations of adolescent menstrual symptoms with school absences and educational attainment: analysis of a prospective cohort study.青少年月经症状与缺课及教育程度的关联:一项前瞻性队列研究的分析
NPJ Sci Learn. 2025 Aug 19;10(1):54. doi: 10.1038/s41539-025-00338-x.
3
Prediction of genomic biomarkers for endometriosis using the transcriptomic dataset.使用转录组数据集预测子宫内膜异位症的基因组生物标志物。
World J Clin Cases. 2025 Jul 16;13(20):104556. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v13.i20.104556.
4
Modeling Versus Balancing Approaches to Addressing Instrumental Variables in Weighting: A Comparison of the Outcome-Adaptive Lasso, Stable Balancing Weighting, and Stable Confounder Selection.加权中处理工具变量的建模与平衡方法:结果自适应套索法、稳定平衡加权法和稳定混杂因素选择法的比较
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2025 Jul;34(7):e70173. doi: 10.1002/pds.70173.
5
Use of Machine Learning to Compare Disease Risk Scores and Propensity Scores Across Complex Confounding Scenarios: A Simulation Study.利用机器学习比较复杂混杂情况下的疾病风险评分和倾向评分:一项模拟研究。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2025 Jun;34(6):e70165. doi: 10.1002/pds.70165.
6
Estimating wage disparities using foundation models.使用基础模型估计工资差距。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 Jun 3;122(22):e2427298122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2427298122. Epub 2025 May 30.
7
Development and validation of prediction models for sentinel lymph node status indicating postmastectomy radiotherapy in breast cancer: population-based study.乳腺癌乳房切除术后放疗前哨淋巴结状态预测模型的开发与验证:基于人群的研究
BJS Open. 2025 Mar 4;9(2). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraf047.
8
IJMPR Didactic Paper: Weighting for Causal Inference in Mental Health Research.《国际精神卫生政策与研究杂志》教学论文:心理健康研究中因果推断的加权法
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2025 Jun;34(2):e70018. doi: 10.1002/mpr.70018.
9
A doubly robust estimator for continuous treatments in high dimensions.一种用于高维连续治疗的双重稳健估计器。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Feb 13;25(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02488-3.
10
Robust propensity score estimation via loss function calibration.通过损失函数校准进行稳健的倾向得分估计。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2025 Mar;34(3):457-472. doi: 10.1177/09622802241308709. Epub 2025 Feb 12.

本文引用的文献

1
Association of levels of opioid use with pain and activity interference among patients initiating chronic opioid therapy: a longitudinal study.启动慢性阿片类药物治疗的患者中阿片类药物使用水平与疼痛及活动干扰之间的关联:一项纵向研究。
Pain. 2016 Apr;157(4):849-857. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000452.
2
Prescription Opioid Duration, Dose, and Increased Risk of Depression in 3 Large Patient Populations.3个大型患者群体中处方阿片类药物的使用时长、剂量与抑郁症风险增加
Ann Fam Med. 2016 Jan-Feb;14(1):54-62. doi: 10.1370/afm.1885.
3
The Impact of Opioid Risk Reduction Initiatives on High-Dose Opioid Prescribing for Patients on Chronic Opioid Therapy.阿片类药物风险降低措施对接受慢性阿片类药物治疗患者的高剂量阿片类药物处方的影响。
J Pain. 2016 Jan;17(1):101-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.10.002. Epub 2015 Oct 22.
4
Regularization Methods for High-Dimensional Instrumental Variables Regression With an Application to Genetical Genomics.高维工具变量回归的正则化方法及其在遗传基因组学中的应用
J Am Stat Assoc. 2015;110(509):270-288. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2014.908125.
5
Accounting for uncertainty in confounder and effect modifier selection when estimating average causal effects in generalized linear models.在广义线性模型中估计平均因果效应时,考虑混杂因素和效应修饰因素选择中的不确定性。
Biometrics. 2015 Sep;71(3):654-65. doi: 10.1111/biom.12315. Epub 2015 Apr 20.
6
Estimation and Accuracy after Model Selection.模型选择后的估计与准确性。
J Am Stat Assoc. 2014 Jul 1;109(507):991-1007. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2013.823775.
7
Confounder selection via penalized credible regions.通过惩罚可信区域进行混杂因素选择。
Biometrics. 2014 Dec;70(4):852-61. doi: 10.1111/biom.12203. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
8
Uncertainty in Propensity Score Estimation: Bayesian Methods for Variable Selection and Model Averaged Causal Effects.倾向得分估计中的不确定性:用于变量选择和模型平均因果效应的贝叶斯方法
J Am Stat Assoc. 2014 Jan 1;109(505):95-107. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2013.869498.
9
Prescription opioid analgesics increase the risk of depression.处方类阿片类镇痛药会增加患抑郁症的风险。
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Mar;29(3):491-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2648-1. Epub 2013 Oct 29.
10
Model feedback in Bayesian propensity score estimation.贝叶斯倾向得分估计中的模型反馈。
Biometrics. 2013 Mar;69(1):263-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01830.x. Epub 2013 Feb 4.