Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference

被引:131
作者
Shortreed, Susan M. [1 ,2 ]
Ertefaie, Ashkan [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Grp Hlth Res Inst, Biostat Unit, Seattle, WA 98101 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Univ Rochester, Dept Biostat & Computat Biol, Rochester, NY USA
[4] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Dept Stat, Ctr Pharmacoepidemiol Res & Training, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Comparative effectiveness; Model selection; Observational studies; Propensity score; PROPENSITY SCORE; MODEL SELECTION; ADJUSTMENT; UNCERTAINTY; CONFOUNDER; SHRINKAGE; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/biom.12679
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Methodological advancements, including propensity score methods, have resulted in improved unbiased estimation of treatment effects from observational data. Traditionally, a throw in the kitchen sink approach has been used to select covariates for inclusion into the propensity score, but recent work shows including unnecessary covariates can impact both the bias and statistical efficiency of propensity score estimators. In particular, the inclusion of covariates that impact exposure but not the outcome, can inflate standard errors without improving bias, while the inclusion of covariates associated with the outcome but unrelated to exposure can improve precision. We propose the outcome-adaptive lasso for selecting appropriate covariates for inclusion in propensity score models to account for confounding bias and maintaining statistical efficiency. This proposed approach can perform variable selection in the presence of a large number of spurious covariates, that is, covariates unrelated to outcome or exposure. We present theoretical and simulation results indicating that the outcome-adaptive lasso selects the propensity score model that includes all true confounders and predictors of outcome, while excluding other covariates. We illustrate covariate selection using the outcome-adaptive lasso, including comparison to alternative approaches, using simulated data and in a survey of patients using opioid therapy to manage chronic pain.
引用
收藏
页码:1111 / 1122
页数:12
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2009, NeurIPS
[2]   Variable selection for propensity score models [J].
Brookhart, M. Alan ;
Schneeweiss, Sebastian ;
Rothman, Kenneth J. ;
Glynn, Robert J. ;
Avorn, Jerry ;
Sturmer, Til .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 163 (12) :1149-1156
[3]   Covariate selection for the nonparametric estimation of an average treatment effect [J].
De Luna, Xavier ;
Waernbaum, Ingeborg ;
Richardson, Thomas S. .
BIOMETRIKA, 2011, 98 (04) :861-875
[4]   Estimation and Accuracy After Model Selection [J].
Efron, Bradley .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 109 (507) :991-1007
[5]   Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties [J].
Fan, JQ ;
Li, RZ .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 96 (456) :1348-1360
[6]   Invited commentary: Variable selection versus shrinkage in the control of multiple confounders [J].
Greenland, Sander .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 167 (05) :523-529
[7]  
Haggstffim J., 2015, J. Stat. Softw., V68, P1
[8]  
Haggstrom J., 2015, PACKAGE COVSEL
[9]   Targeted smoothing parameter selection for estimating average causal effects [J].
Haggstrom, Jenny ;
de Luna, Xavier .
COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS, 2014, 29 (06) :1727-1748
[10]   Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data [J].
Hernán, MA ;
Robins, JM .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2006, 60 (07) :578-586