Improving Bias Correction Standards by Quantifying its Effects on Treatment Outcomes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14861v2
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:55:59 GMT
• Title: Improving Bias Correction Standards by Quantifying its Effects on Treatment Outcomes
• Authors: Alexandre Abraham, Andrés Hoyos Idrobo,
• Abstract summary: Propensity score matching (PSM) addresses selection biases by selecting comparable populations for analysis. Different matching methods can produce significantly different Average Treatment Effects (ATE) for the same task, even when meeting all validation criteria. To address this issue, we introduce a novel metric, A2A, to reduce the number of valid matches.
• Score: 54.18828236350544
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: With the growing access to administrative health databases, retrospective studies have become crucial evidence for medical treatments. Yet, non-randomized studies frequently face selection biases, requiring mitigation strategies. Propensity score matching (PSM) addresses these biases by selecting comparable populations, allowing for analysis without further methodological constraints. However, PSM has several drawbacks. Different matching methods can produce significantly different Average Treatment Effects (ATE) for the same task, even when meeting all validation criteria. To prevent cherry-picking the best method, public authorities must involve field experts and engage in extensive discussions with researchers. To address this issue, we introduce a novel metric, A2A, to reduce the number of valid matches. A2A constructs artificial matching tasks that mirror the original ones but with known outcomes, assessing each matching method's performance comprehensively from propensity estimation to ATE estimation. When combined with Standardized Mean Difference, A2A enhances the precision of model selection, resulting in a reduction of up to 50% in ATE estimation errors across synthetic tasks and up to 90% in predicted ATE variability across both synthetic and real-world datasets. To our knowledge, A2A is the first metric capable of evaluating outcome correction accuracy using covariates not involved in selection. Computing A2A requires solving hundreds of PSMs, we therefore automate all manual steps of the PSM pipeline. We integrate PSM methods from Python and R, our automated pipeline, a new metric, and reproducible experiments into popmatch, our new Python package, to enhance reproducibility and accessibility to bias correction methods.

Related papers

• SureMap: Simultaneous Mean Estimation for Single-Task and Multi-Task Disaggregated Evaluation [75.56845750400116]
  Disaggregated evaluation -- estimation of performance of a machine learning model on different subpopulations -- is a core task when assessing performance and group-fairness of AI systems. We develop SureMap that has high estimation accuracy for both multi-task and single-task disaggregated evaluations of blackbox models. Our method combines maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation using a well-chosen prior together with cross-validation-free tuning via Stein's unbiased risk estimate (SURE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T17:53:35Z)
• Instance-based Learning with Prototype Reduction for Real-Time Proportional Myocontrol: A Randomized User Study Demonstrating Accuracy-preserving Data Reduction for Prosthetic Embedded Systems [0.0]
  This work presents the design, implementation and validation of learning techniques based on the kNN scheme for gesture detection in prosthetic control. The influence of parameterization and varying proportionality schemes is analyzed, utilizing an eight-channel-sEMG armband.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T20:15:35Z)
• Generalization bounds and algorithms for estimating conditional average treatment effect of dosage [13.867315751451494]
  We investigate the task of estimating the conditional average causal effect of treatment-dosage pairs from a combination of observational data and assumptions on the causal relationships in the underlying system. This has been a longstanding challenge for fields of study such as epidemiology or economics that require a treatment-dosage pair to make decisions. We show empirically new state-of-the-art performance results across several benchmark datasets for this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-29T15:26:59Z)
• Assessment of Treatment Effect Estimators for Heavy-Tailed Data [70.72363097550483]
  A central obstacle in the objective assessment of treatment effect (TE) estimators in randomized control trials (RCTs) is the lack of ground truth (or validation set) to test their performance. We provide a novel cross-validation-like methodology to address this challenge. We evaluate our methodology across 709 RCTs implemented in the Amazon supply chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T17:53:01Z)
• Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effect by Data Combination [3.655021726150368]
  It is important to estimate the local average treatment effect (LATE) when compliance with a treatment assignment is incomplete. Previously proposed methods for LATE estimation required all relevant variables to be jointly observed in a single dataset. We propose a weighted least squares estimator that enables simpler model selection by avoiding the minimax objective formulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-11T03:51:48Z)
• Control Variates for Slate Off-Policy Evaluation [112.35528337130118]
  We study the problem of off-policy evaluation from batched contextual bandit data with multidimensional actions. We obtain new estimators with risk improvement guarantees over both the PI and self-normalized PI estimators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-15T06:59:53Z)
• Variable selection with missing data in both covariates and outcomes: Imputation and machine learning [1.0333430439241666]
  The missing data issue is ubiquitous in health studies. Machine learning methods weaken parametric assumptions. XGBoost and BART have the overall best performance across various settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-06T20:18:29Z)
• A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methods [60.04142561088524]
  We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in how reliable automatic metrics truly are. Although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do in some evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T18:28:14Z)
• Double machine learning for sample selection models [0.12891210250935145]
  This paper considers the evaluation of discretely distributed treatments when outcomes are only observed for a subpopulation due to sample selection or outcome attrition. We make use of (a) Neyman-orthogonal, doubly robust, and efficient score functions, which imply the robustness of treatment effect estimation to moderate regularization biases in the machine learning-based estimation of the outcome, treatment, or sample selection models and (b) sample splitting (or cross-fitting) to prevent overfitting bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-30T19:40:21Z)
• Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators [77.34726150561087]
  Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several estimators for the average causal effect (ACE) When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T23:09:55Z)

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.