High-Dimensional Disease Risk Score for Dealing With Residual Confounding Bias in Estimating Treatment Effects With a Survival Outcome.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Md Belal Hossain, Hubert Wong, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Victoria J Cook, James C Johnston, Mohammad Ehsanul Karim
{"title":"High-Dimensional Disease Risk Score for Dealing With Residual Confounding Bias in Estimating Treatment Effects With a Survival Outcome.","authors":"Md Belal Hossain, Hubert Wong, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Victoria J Cook, James C Johnston, Mohammad Ehsanul Karim","doi":"10.1002/pds.70172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Health administrative databases often contain no information on some important confounders, leading to residual confounding in the effect estimate. We aimed to explore the performance of high-dimensional disease risk score (hdDRS) to deal with residual confounding bias for estimating causal effects with survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used health administrative data of 49 197 individuals in British Columbia to examine the relationship between tuberculosis infection and time-to-development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We designed a plasmode simulation exploring the performance of eight hdDRS methods that varied by different approaches to fit the risk score model and also examined results from high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) and traditional regression adjustment. The log-hazard ratio (log-HR) was the target parameter with a true value of log(3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the presence of strong unmeasured confounding, the bias observed was -0.11 for the traditional method and -0.047 for the hdPS method. The bias ranged from -0.051 to -0.058 for hdDRS methods when risk score models were fitted to the full cohort and -0.045 to -0.049 when risk score models were fitted only to unexposed individuals. All methods showed comparable standard errors and nominal bias-eliminated coverage probabilities. With weak unmeasured confounding, hdDRS and hdPS produced approximately unbiased estimates. Our data analysis, after addressing residual confounding, revealed an 8%-11% higher CVD risk associated with tuberculosis infection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support the use of selected hdDRS methods to address residual confounding bias when estimating treatment effects with survival outcomes. In particular, the hdDRS method using rate-based risk score modeling on unexposed individuals consistently exhibited the least bias. However, the hdPS method showed comparable performance across most evaluated scenarios. We share reproducible R codes to facilitate researchers' adoption and further evaluation of these methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 7","pages":"e70172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12229743/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70172","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

Purpose: Health administrative databases often contain no information on some important confounders, leading to residual confounding in the effect estimate. We aimed to explore the performance of high-dimensional disease risk score (hdDRS) to deal with residual confounding bias for estimating causal effects with survival outcomes.

Methods: We used health administrative data of 49 197 individuals in British Columbia to examine the relationship between tuberculosis infection and time-to-development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We designed a plasmode simulation exploring the performance of eight hdDRS methods that varied by different approaches to fit the risk score model and also examined results from high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) and traditional regression adjustment. The log-hazard ratio (log-HR) was the target parameter with a true value of log(3).

Results: In the presence of strong unmeasured confounding, the bias observed was -0.11 for the traditional method and -0.047 for the hdPS method. The bias ranged from -0.051 to -0.058 for hdDRS methods when risk score models were fitted to the full cohort and -0.045 to -0.049 when risk score models were fitted only to unexposed individuals. All methods showed comparable standard errors and nominal bias-eliminated coverage probabilities. With weak unmeasured confounding, hdDRS and hdPS produced approximately unbiased estimates. Our data analysis, after addressing residual confounding, revealed an 8%-11% higher CVD risk associated with tuberculosis infection.

Conclusions: Our findings support the use of selected hdDRS methods to address residual confounding bias when estimating treatment effects with survival outcomes. In particular, the hdDRS method using rate-based risk score modeling on unexposed individuals consistently exhibited the least bias. However, the hdPS method showed comparable performance across most evaluated scenarios. We share reproducible R codes to facilitate researchers' adoption and further evaluation of these methods.

高维疾病风险评分用于估计治疗效果和生存结果的残留混杂偏差。
目的:卫生管理数据库通常不包含一些重要混杂因素的信息,导致效果估计中存在残留混杂因素。我们的目的是探讨高维疾病风险评分(hdDRS)在估计与生存结果的因果效应时处理残留混杂偏差的性能。方法:利用不列颠哥伦比亚省49197人的卫生管理资料,探讨结核病感染与心血管疾病(CVD)发展时间的关系。我们设计了一个等离子模式模拟,探讨了8种hdDRS方法的性能,这些方法因不同的方法而不同,以拟合风险评分模型,并检查了高维倾向评分(hdPS)和传统回归调整的结果。对数风险比(log- hr)为目标参数,其真实值为log(3)。结果:在存在强的未测量混杂的情况下,传统方法的偏差为-0.11,hdPS方法的偏差为-0.047。当风险评分模型拟合到整个队列时,hdDRS方法的偏倚范围为-0.051至-0.058,当风险评分模型仅拟合到未暴露个体时,偏倚范围为-0.045至-0.049。所有方法均显示可比的标准误差和名义消除偏倚的覆盖概率。由于未测量的混杂因素较弱,hdDRS和hdPS产生了近似无偏的估计。我们的数据分析,在解决了残留的混杂因素后,显示与结核感染相关的心血管疾病风险增加8%-11%。结论:我们的研究结果支持在估计治疗效果与生存结果时使用选定的hdDRS方法来解决残留的混杂偏倚。特别是,在未暴露个体上使用基于比率的风险评分模型的hdDRS方法始终显示出最小的偏差。然而,hdPS方法在大多数评估场景中表现出可比性。我们共享可重复的R代码,以方便研究人员采用和进一步评估这些方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信