Project Based Services, Cytel, Inc., 675 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, 02139, Massachusetts, USA.
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Rd, Durham, 27705, North Carolina, USA.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Oct 26;24(1):250. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02375-3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
我们旨在全面比较过去和当前利用随机临床试验(RCT)中的基线协变量信息来估计平均治疗效果(ATE)的方法。我们特别关注它们的性能、效率增益和功效。
我们使用广泛的蒙特卡罗模拟研究比较了 6 种不同的方法:未调整的估计器,即方差分析(ANOVA)、协方差分析(ANCOVA)、异方差协方差分析(ANHECOVA)、逆概率加权(IPW)、增强逆概率加权(AIPW)和重叠加权(OW)以及增强重叠加权(AOW)估计器。这些方法的性能通过相对偏差(RB)、均方根误差(RMSE)、基于模型的标准误差(SE)估计、覆盖概率(CP)和统计功效来评估。
即使随机化执行良好,通过适当的方法调整基线协变量也可以是一种很好的做法。当协变量调整方法中使用的结果模型更接近正确指定的模型时,效率和功效的增益可能会很大。我们还发现,大多数协变量调整方法可能会受到高维诅咒的影响,即当协变量的数量相对于样本量较高时,它们在估计 ATE 时可能表现不佳(同时效率较低)。在我们比较的不同方法中,OW 总体上表现最好,具有较小的 RMSE 和较小的基于模型的 SE,当真实效果不为零时,也会产生更高的功效。此外,OW 在处理高维问题时更稳健。
为了有效地使用协变量调整方法,了解其性质对于实际研究人员很重要。我们的研究表明,结果模型的误设定和高维度是协变量调整方法提高效率和功效的两个主要负担。如果适当考虑这些因素,例如在调整协变量之前,如果数据维度较高,可以进行一些变量选择,那么这些方法有望是有用的。