Loading…

P1-35 On the use of empirical likelihood based methods to achieve balance on measured confounders

IntroductionOne of the limitations of the statistical methods that use propensity scores, such as those involving adjustment for the propensity score, matching, subclassification, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, is that they do not achieve exact balance with respect to the measured c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979) 2011-08, Vol.65 (Suppl 1), p.A77-A77
Main Authors: Luta, G, Dragomir, A, Barbo, A, Loffredo, C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page A77
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page A77
container_title Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)
container_volume 65
creator Luta, G
Dragomir, A
Barbo, A
Loffredo, C
description IntroductionOne of the limitations of the statistical methods that use propensity scores, such as those involving adjustment for the propensity score, matching, subclassification, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, is that they do not achieve exact balance with respect to the measured confounders. Empirical likelihood is a nonparametric method with desirable statistical properties that is perfectly suited to perform the reweighting of the data as to achieve exact balance on measured confounders.MethodsWe describe statistical methods that use empirical likelihood to construct weights that add up to one and produce exact balance when applied to the data. For the case involving only categorical confounders, the empirical likelihood based methods produce weights similar to those generated by the inverse probability weighting or standardisation methods. The new methods can handle both categorical and continuous confounders in a unified manner, and allow the incorporation of balancing constraints ranging from simple equalities of means/proportions to more complex constraints related to the comparison of distributions.ResultsUnder different scenarios of interest, we perform simulations to compare the statistical properties of the proposed method with the inverse probability weighting method. For comparative purposes we also use both methods to evaluate the association between cardiac malformations and birthweight using data from the Washington-Baltimore Infant Study.ConclusionThe proposed empirical likelihood based method performs well and should be used as complementary to the currently available propensity score based methods.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/jech.2011.142976c.29
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1779273030</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4013811621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1979-4b7a842e6a72916dd841a32aaf84a28389f54331f4cc711ea5c6c9f288df607e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMFO3DAQhi1EJZYtb9CDpZ6zeGwnjo9lBUslBFSlqDfL64yVLNl4sRPU3nrpi_ZJ8GoR52oOM9L8__yjj5BPwBYAojrfoGsXnAEsQHKtKrfg-ojMQCpWcCXqYzJjIEXBWPnzhJymtGF5VFzPiLuHQpT__vy9G-jYIp0S0uApbndd7Jztad89Yd-1ITR0bRM2dItjG5pEx0Ctazt8wbzo7eCycchbm6aYZS4MPkxDgzF9JB-87ROevfU5-XF1-bC8Lm7uVl-XX26KNWilC7lWtpYcK5s_g6ppaglWcGt9LS2vRa19KYUAL51TAGhLVznteV03vmIKxZx8PtzdxfA8YRrNJkxxyJEGlNKZBMs1J_KgcjGkFNGbXey2Nv42wMwep9njNHuc5g2n4TrbioOtSyP-evfY-GQqJVRpbh-XZnW7_Pb94vrBXGT9-UG_3m7-L-EVTbWHxQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779273030</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>P1-35 On the use of empirical likelihood based methods to achieve balance on measured confounders</title><source>BMJ</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Luta, G ; Dragomir, A ; Barbo, A ; Loffredo, C</creator><creatorcontrib>Luta, G ; Dragomir, A ; Barbo, A ; Loffredo, C</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionOne of the limitations of the statistical methods that use propensity scores, such as those involving adjustment for the propensity score, matching, subclassification, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, is that they do not achieve exact balance with respect to the measured confounders. Empirical likelihood is a nonparametric method with desirable statistical properties that is perfectly suited to perform the reweighting of the data as to achieve exact balance on measured confounders.MethodsWe describe statistical methods that use empirical likelihood to construct weights that add up to one and produce exact balance when applied to the data. For the case involving only categorical confounders, the empirical likelihood based methods produce weights similar to those generated by the inverse probability weighting or standardisation methods. The new methods can handle both categorical and continuous confounders in a unified manner, and allow the incorporation of balancing constraints ranging from simple equalities of means/proportions to more complex constraints related to the comparison of distributions.ResultsUnder different scenarios of interest, we perform simulations to compare the statistical properties of the proposed method with the inverse probability weighting method. For comparative purposes we also use both methods to evaluate the association between cardiac malformations and birthweight using data from the Washington-Baltimore Infant Study.ConclusionThe proposed empirical likelihood based method performs well and should be used as complementary to the currently available propensity score based methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-005X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1470-2738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jech.2011.142976c.29</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JECHDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Statistical methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979), 2011-08, Vol.65 (Suppl 1), p.A77-A77</ispartof><rights>2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2011 (c) 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jech.bmj.com/content/65/Suppl_1/A77.1.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jech.bmj.com/content/65/Suppl_1/A77.1.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>112,113,314,780,784,3185,27915,27916,77355,77356</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Luta, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dragomir, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbo, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loffredo, C</creatorcontrib><title>P1-35 On the use of empirical likelihood based methods to achieve balance on measured confounders</title><title>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</title><addtitle>J Epidemiol Community Health</addtitle><description>IntroductionOne of the limitations of the statistical methods that use propensity scores, such as those involving adjustment for the propensity score, matching, subclassification, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, is that they do not achieve exact balance with respect to the measured confounders. Empirical likelihood is a nonparametric method with desirable statistical properties that is perfectly suited to perform the reweighting of the data as to achieve exact balance on measured confounders.MethodsWe describe statistical methods that use empirical likelihood to construct weights that add up to one and produce exact balance when applied to the data. For the case involving only categorical confounders, the empirical likelihood based methods produce weights similar to those generated by the inverse probability weighting or standardisation methods. The new methods can handle both categorical and continuous confounders in a unified manner, and allow the incorporation of balancing constraints ranging from simple equalities of means/proportions to more complex constraints related to the comparison of distributions.ResultsUnder different scenarios of interest, we perform simulations to compare the statistical properties of the proposed method with the inverse probability weighting method. For comparative purposes we also use both methods to evaluate the association between cardiac malformations and birthweight using data from the Washington-Baltimore Infant Study.ConclusionThe proposed empirical likelihood based method performs well and should be used as complementary to the currently available propensity score based methods.</description><subject>Statistical methods</subject><issn>0143-005X</issn><issn>1470-2738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMFO3DAQhi1EJZYtb9CDpZ6zeGwnjo9lBUslBFSlqDfL64yVLNl4sRPU3nrpi_ZJ8GoR52oOM9L8__yjj5BPwBYAojrfoGsXnAEsQHKtKrfg-ojMQCpWcCXqYzJjIEXBWPnzhJymtGF5VFzPiLuHQpT__vy9G-jYIp0S0uApbndd7Jztad89Yd-1ITR0bRM2dItjG5pEx0Ctazt8wbzo7eCycchbm6aYZS4MPkxDgzF9JB-87ROevfU5-XF1-bC8Lm7uVl-XX26KNWilC7lWtpYcK5s_g6ppaglWcGt9LS2vRa19KYUAL51TAGhLVznteV03vmIKxZx8PtzdxfA8YRrNJkxxyJEGlNKZBMs1J_KgcjGkFNGbXey2Nv42wMwep9njNHuc5g2n4TrbioOtSyP-evfY-GQqJVRpbh-XZnW7_Pb94vrBXGT9-UG_3m7-L-EVTbWHxQ</recordid><startdate>201108</startdate><enddate>201108</enddate><creator>Luta, G</creator><creator>Dragomir, A</creator><creator>Barbo, A</creator><creator>Loffredo, C</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201108</creationdate><title>P1-35 On the use of empirical likelihood based methods to achieve balance on measured confounders</title><author>Luta, G ; Dragomir, A ; Barbo, A ; Loffredo, C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1979-4b7a842e6a72916dd841a32aaf84a28389f54331f4cc711ea5c6c9f288df607e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Statistical methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Luta, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dragomir, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbo, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loffredo, C</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Luta, G</au><au>Dragomir, A</au><au>Barbo, A</au><au>Loffredo, C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>P1-35 On the use of empirical likelihood based methods to achieve balance on measured confounders</atitle><jtitle>Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979)</jtitle><addtitle>J Epidemiol Community Health</addtitle><date>2011-08</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A77</spage><epage>A77</epage><pages>A77-A77</pages><issn>0143-005X</issn><eissn>1470-2738</eissn><coden>JECHDR</coden><abstract>IntroductionOne of the limitations of the statistical methods that use propensity scores, such as those involving adjustment for the propensity score, matching, subclassification, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, is that they do not achieve exact balance with respect to the measured confounders. Empirical likelihood is a nonparametric method with desirable statistical properties that is perfectly suited to perform the reweighting of the data as to achieve exact balance on measured confounders.MethodsWe describe statistical methods that use empirical likelihood to construct weights that add up to one and produce exact balance when applied to the data. For the case involving only categorical confounders, the empirical likelihood based methods produce weights similar to those generated by the inverse probability weighting or standardisation methods. The new methods can handle both categorical and continuous confounders in a unified manner, and allow the incorporation of balancing constraints ranging from simple equalities of means/proportions to more complex constraints related to the comparison of distributions.ResultsUnder different scenarios of interest, we perform simulations to compare the statistical properties of the proposed method with the inverse probability weighting method. For comparative purposes we also use both methods to evaluate the association between cardiac malformations and birthweight using data from the Washington-Baltimore Infant Study.ConclusionThe proposed empirical likelihood based method performs well and should be used as complementary to the currently available propensity score based methods.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><doi>10.1136/jech.2011.142976c.29</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0143-005X
ispartof Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979), 2011-08, Vol.65 (Suppl 1), p.A77-A77
issn 0143-005X
1470-2738
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1779273030
source BMJ; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Statistical methods
title P1-35 On the use of empirical likelihood based methods to achieve balance on measured confounders
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T04%3A57%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=P1-35%E2%80%85On%20the%20use%20of%20empirical%20likelihood%20based%20methods%20to%20achieve%20balance%20on%20measured%20confounders&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20epidemiology%20and%20community%20health%20(1979)&rft.au=Luta,%20G&rft.date=2011-08&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A77&rft.epage=A77&rft.pages=A77-A77&rft.issn=0143-005X&rft.eissn=1470-2738&rft.coden=JECHDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jech.2011.142976c.29&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4013811621%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1979-4b7a842e6a72916dd841a32aaf84a28389f54331f4cc711ea5c6c9f288df607e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1779273030&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true