Examination of Entropy balancing technique for estimating some standard measures of treatment effects: A simulation study

IF 0.6 Q4 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
L. Amusa, T. Zewotir, D. North
{"title":"Examination of Entropy balancing technique for estimating some standard measures of treatment effects: A simulation study","authors":"L. Amusa, T. Zewotir, D. North","doi":"10.1285/I20705948V12N2P491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In observational studies, propensity score weighting methods are regarded as the conventional standard for estimating the effects of treatments on outcomes. We introduce entropy balancing, which despite its excellent conceptual properties, has been under-utilized in the applied studies. Using an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluated the performance of entropy balancing, in estimating difference in means, marginal odds ratios, rate ratios and hazard ratios. The performance of entropy balancing was relatively compared with that of inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score. We found that entropy balancing outperformed the IPW method in estimating difference in means, marginal odds ratios, and hazard ratios, but when estimating marginal rate ratios, IPW performed better. Entropy balancing produced more biased estimates in many cases. However, the entropy balancing algorithm is capable of controlling bias by loosening the tightening of the pre-specified tolerance on covariate balance. We report findings as to when one technique is better than the other with no proclamation on whether one method is in every case superior to the other. Entropy balancing merits more widespread adoption in applied studies.","PeriodicalId":44770,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis","volume":"12 1","pages":"491-507"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1285/I20705948V12N2P491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

In observational studies, propensity score weighting methods are regarded as the conventional standard for estimating the effects of treatments on outcomes. We introduce entropy balancing, which despite its excellent conceptual properties, has been under-utilized in the applied studies. Using an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluated the performance of entropy balancing, in estimating difference in means, marginal odds ratios, rate ratios and hazard ratios. The performance of entropy balancing was relatively compared with that of inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score. We found that entropy balancing outperformed the IPW method in estimating difference in means, marginal odds ratios, and hazard ratios, but when estimating marginal rate ratios, IPW performed better. Entropy balancing produced more biased estimates in many cases. However, the entropy balancing algorithm is capable of controlling bias by loosening the tightening of the pre-specified tolerance on covariate balance. We report findings as to when one technique is better than the other with no proclamation on whether one method is in every case superior to the other. Entropy balancing merits more widespread adoption in applied studies.
熵平衡技术在估计治疗效果的一些标准措施中的检验:模拟研究
在观察性研究中,倾向评分加权法被认为是估计治疗对结果影响的常规标准。我们介绍了熵平衡,尽管它具有良好的概念性质,但在应用研究中尚未得到充分利用。利用一系列广泛的蒙特卡罗模拟,我们评估了熵平衡在估计均值、边际优势比、比率比和风险比差异方面的性能。将熵平衡的效果与倾向得分处理加权逆概率的效果进行了相对比较。我们发现熵平衡法在估计均值差、边际优势比和风险比方面优于IPW法,但在估计边际率比时,IPW法表现更好。熵平衡在许多情况下产生了更有偏见的估计。然而,熵平衡算法能够通过放松协变量平衡上预先指定的公差的收紧来控制偏差。我们报告了一种技术何时优于另一种技术的发现,而没有宣布一种方法是否在每种情况下都优于另一种方法。熵平衡在应用研究中有更广泛的应用价值。
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
1.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信