Targeted maximum likelihood estimation in safety analysis

被引:23
作者
Lendle, Samuel D. [1 ,2 ]
Fireman, Bruce [2 ]
van der Laan, Mark J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Div Biostat, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[2] Kaiser Permanente Div Res, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Safety analysis; Targeted maximum likelihood estimation; Doubly robust; Causal inference; Collaborative targeted maximum likelihood estimation; Super learning; PROPENSITY SCORE; CAUSAL INFERENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.017
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: To compare the performance of a targeted maximum likelihood estimator (TMLE) and a collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) to other estimators in a drug safety analysis, including a regression-based estimator, propensity score (PS) based estimators, and an alternate doubly robust (DR) estimator in a real example and simulations. Study Design and Setting: The real data set is a subset of observational data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California formatted for use in active drug safety surveillance. Both the real and simulated data sets include potential confounders, a treatment variable indicating use of one of two antidiabetic treatments and an outcome variable indicating occurrence of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Results: In the real data example, there is no difference in AMI rates between treatments. In simulations, the double robustness property is demonstrated: DR estimators are consistent if either the initial outcome regression or PS estimator is consistent, whereas other estimators are inconsistent if the initial estimator is not consistent. In simulations with near-positivity violations, CTMLE performs well relative to other estimators by adaptively estimating the PS. Conclusion: Each of the DR estimators was consistent, and TMLE and CTMLE had the smallest mean squared error in simulations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:S91 / S98
页数:8
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Biomarker discovery using targeted maximum-likelihood estimation: Application to the treatment of antiretroviral-resistant HIV infection [J].
Bembom, Oliver ;
Petersen, Maya L. ;
Rhee, Soo-Yon ;
Fessel, W. Jeffrey ;
Sinisi, Sandra E. ;
Shafer, Robert W. ;
van der Laan, Mark J. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (01) :152-172
[2]  
Bickel P. J., 1993, EFFICIENT ADAPTIVE E
[3]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[4]   Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching [J].
Caliendo, Marco ;
Kopeinig, Sabine .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SURVEYS, 2008, 22 (01) :31-72
[5]   SUPPORT-VECTOR NETWORKS [J].
CORTES, C ;
VAPNIK, V .
MACHINE LEARNING, 1995, 20 (03) :273-297
[6]   Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects [J].
Crump, Richard K. ;
Hotz, V. Joseph ;
Imbens, Guido W. ;
Mitnik, Oscar A. .
BIOMETRIKA, 2009, 96 (01) :187-199
[7]   Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes [J].
Frangakis, CE ;
Rubin, DB .
BIOMETRIKA, 1999, 86 (02) :365-379
[8]  
Gill RD, 2001, ANN STAT, V29, P1785
[9]   Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research [J].
Greenland, S ;
Pearl, J ;
Robins, JM .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1999, 10 (01) :37-48
[10]   Confounding in health research [J].
Greenland, S ;
Morgenstern, H .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2001, 22 :189-212