Conditional Cross-Design Synthesis Estimators for Generalizability in Medicaid

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13288v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 18:20:32 GMT
• Title: Conditional Cross-Design Synthesis Estimators for Generalizability in Medicaid
• Authors: Irina Degtiar, Tim Layton, Jacob Wallace, and Sherri Rose
• Abstract summary: We propose a class of novel conditional cross-design synthesis estimators that combine randomized and observational data. We apply these methods to estimate the causal effect of managed care plans on health care spending among Medicaid beneficiaries in New York City.
• Score: 0.1259953341639576
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While much of the causal inference literature has focused on addressing internal validity biases, both internal and external validity are necessary for unbiased estimates in a target population of interest. However, few generalizability approaches exist for estimating causal quantities in a target population when the target population is not well-represented by a randomized study but is reflected when additionally incorporating observational data. To generalize to a target population represented by a union of these data, we propose a class of novel conditional cross-design synthesis estimators that combine randomized and observational data, while addressing their respective biases. The estimators include outcome regression, propensity weighting, and double robust approaches. All use the covariate overlap between the randomized and observational data to remove potential unmeasured confounding bias. We apply these methods to estimate the causal effect of managed care plans on health care spending among Medicaid beneficiaries in New York City.

Related papers

• Causal Lifting of Neural Representations: Zero-Shot Generalization for Causal Inferences [56.23412698865433]
  We focus on causal inferences on a target experiment with unlabeled factual outcomes, retrieved by a predictive model fine-tuned on a labeled similar experiment. First, we show that factual outcome estimation via Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) may fail to yield valid causal inferences on the target population. We propose Deconfounded Empirical Risk Minimization (DERM), a new simple learning procedure minimizing the risk over a fictitious target population.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T10:52:17Z)
• Approximating Counterfactual Bounds while Fusing Observational, Biased and Randomised Data Sources [64.96984404868411]
  We address the problem of integrating data from multiple, possibly biased, observational and interventional studies. We show that the likelihood of the available data has no local maxima. We then show how the same approach can address the general case of multiple datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T11:28:24Z)
• Federated Causal Inference in Heterogeneous Observational Data [13.460660554484512]
  We are interested in estimating the effect of a treatment applied to individuals at multiple sites, where data is stored locally for each site. Due to privacy constraints, individual-level data cannot be shared across sites; the sites may also have heterogeneous populations and treatment assignment mechanisms. Motivated by these considerations, we develop federated methods to draw inference on the average treatment effects of combined data across sites.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-25T05:55:00Z)
• Bootstrapping Your Own Positive Sample: Contrastive Learning With Electronic Health Record Data [62.29031007761901]
  This paper proposes a novel contrastive regularized clinical classification model. We introduce two unique positive sampling strategies specifically tailored for EHR data. Our framework yields highly competitive experimental results in predicting the mortality risk on real-world COVID-19 EHR data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-07T06:02:04Z)
• A Review of Generalizability and Transportability [0.18275108630751835]
  Estimates from randomized data may have internal validity but are often not representative of the target population. Observational data may better reflect the target population, and hence be more likely to have external validity, but are subject to potential bias due to unmeasured confounding. This paper presents a framework for addressing external validity bias, including a synthesis of approaches for generalizability and transportability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T19:34:13Z)
• Split-Treatment Analysis to Rank Heterogeneous Causal Effects for Prospective Interventions [15.443178111068418]
  We propose a split-treatment analysis that ranks the individuals most likely to be positively affected by a prospective intervention. We show that the ranking of heterogeneous causal effect based on the proxy treatment is the same as the ranking based on the target treatment's effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-11T16:17:29Z)
• Double Robust Representation Learning for Counterfactual Prediction [68.78210173955001]
  We propose a novel scalable method to learn double-robust representations for counterfactual predictions. We make robust and efficient counterfactual predictions for both individual and average treatment effects. The algorithm shows competitive performance with the state-of-the-art on real world and synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T16:39:26Z)
• Assessing External Validity Over Worst-case Subpopulations [8.98526174345299]
  Study populations are typically sampled from limited points in space and time. We propose and evaluate the worst-case treatment effect (WTE) across all subpopulations of a given size. We develop a semiparametrically efficient estimator for the WTE that analyzes the external validity of the augmented inverse propensity weighted estimator for the average treatment effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-05T18:34:14Z)
• Enabling Counterfactual Survival Analysis with Balanced Representations [64.17342727357618]
  Survival data are frequently encountered across diverse medical applications, i.e., drug development, risk profiling, and clinical trials. We propose a theoretically grounded unified framework for counterfactual inference applicable to survival outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-14T01:15:00Z)
• Performance metrics for intervention-triggering prediction models do not reflect an expected reduction in outcomes from using the model [71.9860741092209]
  Clinical researchers often select among and evaluate risk prediction models. Standard metrics calculated from retrospective data are only related to model utility under certain assumptions. When predictions are delivered repeatedly throughout time, the relationship between standard metrics and utility is further complicated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T16:26:49Z)
• Survival Cluster Analysis [93.50540270973927]
  There is an unmet need in survival analysis for identifying subpopulations with distinct risk profiles. An approach that addresses this need is likely to improve characterization of individual outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-29T22:41:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.