{"title":"How Effective Are Machine Learning and Doubly Robust Estimators in Incorporating High-Dimensional Proxies to Reduce Residual Confounding?","authors":"Mohammad Ehsanul Karim, Yang Lei","doi":"10.1002/pds.70155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Residual confounding presents a persistent challenge in observational studies, particularly in high-dimensional settings. High-dimensional proxy adjustment methods, such as the high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS), are widely used to address confounding bias by incorporating proxies for unmeasured confounders. Extensions of hdPS have integrated machine learning, such as LASSO and super learner (SL), and doubly robust estimators, such as targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). However, the comparative performance of these methods, especially under different learner configurations and high-dimensional proxies, remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted plasmode simulations to evaluate the performance of standard methods, SL, TMLE, and double cross-fit TMLE (DC-TMLE) under varying exposure and outcome prevalence scenarios. Learner libraries included: 1 learner (logistic regression), 3 learners (logistic regression, MARS, and LASSO), and 4 learners (adding XGBoost, a non-Donsker learner). Metrics included bias, coverage, and variability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Methods without proxies exhibited the highest bias and poorest coverage, highlighting the critical role of proxies in confounding adjustment. Standard methods incorporating high-dimensional proxies showed robust performance, achieving low bias and near-nominal coverage. TMLE and DC-TMLE reduced bias but exhibited worse coverage compared to standard methods, particularly with larger learner libraries. Notably, DC-TMLE, expected to address under-coverage issues, failed to perform adequately in high-dimensional settings with non-Donsker learners, further emphasizing the instability introduced by complex libraries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings underscore the utility of high-dimensional proxies in standard methods and the importance of tailoring learner configurations in SL and TMLE to ensure reliable confounding adjustment in high-dimensional contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 5","pages":"e70155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076102/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Residual confounding presents a persistent challenge in observational studies, particularly in high-dimensional settings. High-dimensional proxy adjustment methods, such as the high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS), are widely used to address confounding bias by incorporating proxies for unmeasured confounders. Extensions of hdPS have integrated machine learning, such as LASSO and super learner (SL), and doubly robust estimators, such as targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE). However, the comparative performance of these methods, especially under different learner configurations and high-dimensional proxies, remains unclear.
Method: We conducted plasmode simulations to evaluate the performance of standard methods, SL, TMLE, and double cross-fit TMLE (DC-TMLE) under varying exposure and outcome prevalence scenarios. Learner libraries included: 1 learner (logistic regression), 3 learners (logistic regression, MARS, and LASSO), and 4 learners (adding XGBoost, a non-Donsker learner). Metrics included bias, coverage, and variability.
Results: Methods without proxies exhibited the highest bias and poorest coverage, highlighting the critical role of proxies in confounding adjustment. Standard methods incorporating high-dimensional proxies showed robust performance, achieving low bias and near-nominal coverage. TMLE and DC-TMLE reduced bias but exhibited worse coverage compared to standard methods, particularly with larger learner libraries. Notably, DC-TMLE, expected to address under-coverage issues, failed to perform adequately in high-dimensional settings with non-Donsker learners, further emphasizing the instability introduced by complex libraries.
Conclusion: Our findings underscore the utility of high-dimensional proxies in standard methods and the importance of tailoring learner configurations in SL and TMLE to ensure reliable confounding adjustment in high-dimensional contexts.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.