Evaluating treatment effectiveness under model misspecification: A comparison of targeted maximum likelihood estimation with bias-corrected matching
Sekhon, Jasjeet S
MetadataShow full item record
CitationKreif, Noémi, Susan Gruber, Rosalba Radice, Richard Grieve, and Jasjeet S Sekhon. 2014. “Evaluating treatment effectiveness under model misspecification: A comparison of targeted maximum likelihood estimation with bias-corrected matching.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research 25 (5): 2315-2336. doi:10.1177/0962280214521341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280214521341.
AbstractStatistical approaches for estimating treatment effectiveness commonly model the endpoint, or the propensity score, using parametric regressions such as generalised linear models. Misspecification of these models can lead to biased parameter estimates. We compare two approaches that combine the propensity score and the endpoint regression, and can make weaker modelling assumptions, by using machine learning approaches to estimate the regression function and the propensity score. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation is a double-robust method designed to reduce bias in the estimate of the parameter of interest. Bias-corrected matching reduces bias due to covariate imbalance between matched pairs by using regression predictions. We illustrate the methods in an evaluation of different types of hip prosthesis on the health-related quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis. We undertake a simulation study, grounded in the case study, to compare the relative bias, efficiency and confidence interval coverage of the methods. We consider data generating processes with non-linear functional form relationships, normal and non-normal endpoints. We find that across the circumstances considered, bias-corrected matching generally reported less bias, but higher variance than targeted maximum likelihood estimation. When either targeted maximum likelihood estimation or bias-corrected matching incorporated machine learning, bias was much reduced, compared to using misspecified parametric models.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:29408426