Loading…
Comment: Matching Methods for Observational Studies Derived from Large Administrative Databases: Mark M. Fredrickson, Josh Errickson, and Ben B. Hansen
In the era of big data, finding a comparable control group for a set of treated units provides new opportunities and challenges. When controls vastly outnumber treated subjects, there will likely be many good potential matches for each treated subject. On the other hand, with larger data sets, incre...
Saved in:
Published in: | Statistical science 2020-08, Vol.35 (3), p.361 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 | |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 361 |
container_title | Statistical science |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Fredrickson, Mark M Errickson, Josh Hansen, Ben B |
description | In the era of big data, finding a comparable control group for a set of treated units provides new opportunities and challenges. When controls vastly outnumber treated subjects, there will likely be many good potential matches for each treated subject. On the other hand, with larger data sets, increased computation time prevents applying existing methods to find the best possible match. Yu et al. propose a fast caliper solution that restricts the possible controls for each treated subject, making matching with large databases tractable. Their results on determining the narrowest caliper that is compatible with pair matching (without replacement) will be of great practical use. We take issue with the labeling of this caliper as "optimal." The label is accurate in a certain sense -- it does minimize an objective of caliper width, subject to the constraint that pair matching remain feasible while no treatment group member is discarded but these .ire quite different objectives and constraints from those otherwise targeted in the course of optimal matching. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1214/19-STS740 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2452537765</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2452537765</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_24525377653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjslOwzAURS0EEmFY8AdPYkuCnTgD7OikChGxSPeVW780bhsb_Jz8Cr9LkRBrVkdXOro6jN0JnohUyEfxFDerppT8jEWpKKq4KmV-ziJeVVks06y8ZFdEe855XggZsa-p63u04RlqFbadsTuoMXROE7TOw_uG0I8qGGfVEZowaIMEM_RmRA2tdz28Kb9DeNG9sYaCP7kjwkwFtVGE9PPrD1AnsPCovdkeyNkHeHXUwdz_bWU1TNDCJIGlsoT2hl206kh4-8trdr-Yr6bL-MO7zwEprPdu8KcoWqcyT_OsLIs8-5_1DUnRXI0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2452537765</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comment: Matching Methods for Observational Studies Derived from Large Administrative Databases: Mark M. Fredrickson, Josh Errickson, and Ben B. Hansen</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Fredrickson, Mark M ; Errickson, Josh ; Hansen, Ben B</creator><creatorcontrib>Fredrickson, Mark M ; Errickson, Josh ; Hansen, Ben B</creatorcontrib><description>In the era of big data, finding a comparable control group for a set of treated units provides new opportunities and challenges. When controls vastly outnumber treated subjects, there will likely be many good potential matches for each treated subject. On the other hand, with larger data sets, increased computation time prevents applying existing methods to find the best possible match. Yu et al. propose a fast caliper solution that restricts the possible controls for each treated subject, making matching with large databases tractable. Their results on determining the narrowest caliper that is compatible with pair matching (without replacement) will be of great practical use. We take issue with the labeling of this caliper as "optimal." The label is accurate in a certain sense -- it does minimize an objective of caliper width, subject to the constraint that pair matching remain feasible while no treatment group member is discarded but these .ire quite different objectives and constraints from those otherwise targeted in the course of optimal matching.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-4237</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-8745</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1214/19-STS740</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hayward: Institute of Mathematical Statistics</publisher><subject>Big Data ; Datasets ; Matching ; Observational studies ; Statistical methods</subject><ispartof>Statistical science, 2020-08, Vol.35 (3), p.361</ispartof><rights>Copyright Institute of Mathematical Statistics Aug 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fredrickson, Mark M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Errickson, Josh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hansen, Ben B</creatorcontrib><title>Comment: Matching Methods for Observational Studies Derived from Large Administrative Databases: Mark M. Fredrickson, Josh Errickson, and Ben B. Hansen</title><title>Statistical science</title><description>In the era of big data, finding a comparable control group for a set of treated units provides new opportunities and challenges. When controls vastly outnumber treated subjects, there will likely be many good potential matches for each treated subject. On the other hand, with larger data sets, increased computation time prevents applying existing methods to find the best possible match. Yu et al. propose a fast caliper solution that restricts the possible controls for each treated subject, making matching with large databases tractable. Their results on determining the narrowest caliper that is compatible with pair matching (without replacement) will be of great practical use. We take issue with the labeling of this caliper as "optimal." The label is accurate in a certain sense -- it does minimize an objective of caliper width, subject to the constraint that pair matching remain feasible while no treatment group member is discarded but these .ire quite different objectives and constraints from those otherwise targeted in the course of optimal matching.</description><subject>Big Data</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Matching</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><issn>0883-4237</issn><issn>2168-8745</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNqNjslOwzAURS0EEmFY8AdPYkuCnTgD7OikChGxSPeVW780bhsb_Jz8Cr9LkRBrVkdXOro6jN0JnohUyEfxFDerppT8jEWpKKq4KmV-ziJeVVks06y8ZFdEe855XggZsa-p63u04RlqFbadsTuoMXROE7TOw_uG0I8qGGfVEZowaIMEM_RmRA2tdz28Kb9DeNG9sYaCP7kjwkwFtVGE9PPrD1AnsPCovdkeyNkHeHXUwdz_bWU1TNDCJIGlsoT2hl206kh4-8trdr-Yr6bL-MO7zwEprPdu8KcoWqcyT_OsLIs8-5_1DUnRXI0</recordid><startdate>20200801</startdate><enddate>20200801</enddate><creator>Fredrickson, Mark M</creator><creator>Errickson, Josh</creator><creator>Hansen, Ben B</creator><general>Institute of Mathematical Statistics</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20200801</creationdate><title>Comment: Matching Methods for Observational Studies Derived from Large Administrative Databases: Mark M. Fredrickson, Josh Errickson, and Ben B. Hansen</title><author>Fredrickson, Mark M ; Errickson, Josh ; Hansen, Ben B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_24525377653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Big Data</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Matching</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fredrickson, Mark M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Errickson, Josh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hansen, Ben B</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Statistical science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fredrickson, Mark M</au><au>Errickson, Josh</au><au>Hansen, Ben B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comment: Matching Methods for Observational Studies Derived from Large Administrative Databases: Mark M. Fredrickson, Josh Errickson, and Ben B. Hansen</atitle><jtitle>Statistical science</jtitle><date>2020-08-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>361</spage><pages>361-</pages><issn>0883-4237</issn><eissn>2168-8745</eissn><abstract>In the era of big data, finding a comparable control group for a set of treated units provides new opportunities and challenges. When controls vastly outnumber treated subjects, there will likely be many good potential matches for each treated subject. On the other hand, with larger data sets, increased computation time prevents applying existing methods to find the best possible match. Yu et al. propose a fast caliper solution that restricts the possible controls for each treated subject, making matching with large databases tractable. Their results on determining the narrowest caliper that is compatible with pair matching (without replacement) will be of great practical use. We take issue with the labeling of this caliper as "optimal." The label is accurate in a certain sense -- it does minimize an objective of caliper width, subject to the constraint that pair matching remain feasible while no treatment group member is discarded but these .ire quite different objectives and constraints from those otherwise targeted in the course of optimal matching.</abstract><cop>Hayward</cop><pub>Institute of Mathematical Statistics</pub><doi>10.1214/19-STS740</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0883-4237 |
ispartof | Statistical science, 2020-08, Vol.35 (3), p.361 |
issn | 0883-4237 2168-8745 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2452537765 |
source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Big Data Datasets Matching Observational studies Statistical methods |
title | Comment: Matching Methods for Observational Studies Derived from Large Administrative Databases: Mark M. Fredrickson, Josh Errickson, and Ben B. Hansen |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T11%3A07%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comment:%20Matching%20Methods%20for%20Observational%20Studies%20Derived%20from%20Large%20Administrative%20Databases:%20Mark%20M.%20Fredrickson,%20Josh%20Errickson,%20and%20Ben%20B.%20Hansen&rft.jtitle=Statistical%20science&rft.au=Fredrickson,%20Mark%20M&rft.date=2020-08-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=361&rft.pages=361-&rft.issn=0883-4237&rft.eissn=2168-8745&rft_id=info:doi/10.1214/19-STS740&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2452537765%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_24525377653%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2452537765&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |