具有生存结果的序贯试验模拟中的推理程序:比较基于三明治方差估计器、bootstrap和jackknife的置信区间。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Juliette M Limozin, Shaun R Seaman, Li Su
{"title":"具有生存结果的序贯试验模拟中的推理程序:比较基于三明治方差估计器、bootstrap和jackknife的置信区间。","authors":"Juliette M Limozin, Shaun R Seaman, Li Su","doi":"10.1177/09622802251356594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sequential trial emulation (STE) is an approach to estimating causal treatment effects by emulating a sequence of target trials from observational data. In STE, inverse probability weighting is commonly utilised to address time-varying confounding and/or dependent censoring. Then structural models for potential outcomes are applied to the weighted data to estimate treatment effects. For inference, the simple sandwich variance estimator is popular but conservative, while nonparametric bootstrap is computationally expensive, and a more efficient alternative, linearised estimating function (LEF) bootstrap, has not been adapted to STE. We evaluated the performance of various methods for constructing confidence intervals (CIs) of marginal risk differences in STE with survival outcomes by comparing the coverage of CIs based on nonparametric/LEF bootstrap, jackknife, and the sandwich variance estimator through simulations. LEF bootstrap CIs demonstrated better coverage than nonparametric bootstrap CIs and sandwich-variance-estimator-based CIs with small/moderate sample sizes, low event rates and low treatment prevalence, which were the motivating scenarios for STE. They were less affected by treatment group imbalance and faster to compute than nonparametric bootstrap CIs. With large sample sizes and medium/high event rates, the sandwich-variance-estimator-based CIs had the best coverage and were the fastest to compute. These findings offer guidance in constructing CIs in causal survival analysis using STE.</p>","PeriodicalId":22038,"journal":{"name":"Statistical Methods in Medical Research","volume":" ","pages":"9622802251356594"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inference procedures in sequential trial emulation with survival outcomes: Comparing confidence intervals based on the sandwich variance estimator, bootstrap and jackknife.\",\"authors\":\"Juliette M Limozin, Shaun R Seaman, Li Su\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09622802251356594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sequential trial emulation (STE) is an approach to estimating causal treatment effects by emulating a sequence of target trials from observational data. In STE, inverse probability weighting is commonly utilised to address time-varying confounding and/or dependent censoring. Then structural models for potential outcomes are applied to the weighted data to estimate treatment effects. For inference, the simple sandwich variance estimator is popular but conservative, while nonparametric bootstrap is computationally expensive, and a more efficient alternative, linearised estimating function (LEF) bootstrap, has not been adapted to STE. We evaluated the performance of various methods for constructing confidence intervals (CIs) of marginal risk differences in STE with survival outcomes by comparing the coverage of CIs based on nonparametric/LEF bootstrap, jackknife, and the sandwich variance estimator through simulations. LEF bootstrap CIs demonstrated better coverage than nonparametric bootstrap CIs and sandwich-variance-estimator-based CIs with small/moderate sample sizes, low event rates and low treatment prevalence, which were the motivating scenarios for STE. They were less affected by treatment group imbalance and faster to compute than nonparametric bootstrap CIs. With large sample sizes and medium/high event rates, the sandwich-variance-estimator-based CIs had the best coverage and were the fastest to compute. These findings offer guidance in constructing CIs in causal survival analysis using STE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistical Methods in Medical Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9622802251356594\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistical Methods in Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802251356594\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistical Methods in Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802251356594","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

序贯试验模拟(STE)是一种通过从观察数据中模拟一系列目标试验来估计因果治疗效果的方法。在STE中,逆概率加权通常用于处理时变混淆和/或相关审查。然后将潜在结果的结构模型应用于加权数据来估计治疗效果。对于推理,简单的夹心方差估计器是流行的但保守的,而非参数自举法在计算上是昂贵的,并且更有效的替代方法,线性估计函数(LEF)自举法尚未适用于STE。我们通过模拟比较基于非参数/LEF bootstrap、jackknife和三明治方差估计器的ci的覆盖率,评估了各种构建STE边际风险差异置信区间(ci)方法的性能。在小/中等样本量、低事件率和低治疗流行率的情况下,LEF自举ci比非参数自举ci和基于三明治方差估计器的ci具有更好的覆盖率,这是STE的激励情景。它们受治疗组不平衡的影响较小,计算速度比非参数自助ci快。对于大样本量和中/高事件率,基于三明治方差估计器的ci具有最好的覆盖率,并且计算速度最快。这些发现为STE在因果生存分析中构建ci提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inference procedures in sequential trial emulation with survival outcomes: Comparing confidence intervals based on the sandwich variance estimator, bootstrap and jackknife.

Sequential trial emulation (STE) is an approach to estimating causal treatment effects by emulating a sequence of target trials from observational data. In STE, inverse probability weighting is commonly utilised to address time-varying confounding and/or dependent censoring. Then structural models for potential outcomes are applied to the weighted data to estimate treatment effects. For inference, the simple sandwich variance estimator is popular but conservative, while nonparametric bootstrap is computationally expensive, and a more efficient alternative, linearised estimating function (LEF) bootstrap, has not been adapted to STE. We evaluated the performance of various methods for constructing confidence intervals (CIs) of marginal risk differences in STE with survival outcomes by comparing the coverage of CIs based on nonparametric/LEF bootstrap, jackknife, and the sandwich variance estimator through simulations. LEF bootstrap CIs demonstrated better coverage than nonparametric bootstrap CIs and sandwich-variance-estimator-based CIs with small/moderate sample sizes, low event rates and low treatment prevalence, which were the motivating scenarios for STE. They were less affected by treatment group imbalance and faster to compute than nonparametric bootstrap CIs. With large sample sizes and medium/high event rates, the sandwich-variance-estimator-based CIs had the best coverage and were the fastest to compute. These findings offer guidance in constructing CIs in causal survival analysis using STE.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Statistical Methods in Medical Research 医学-数学与计算生物学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Statistical Methods in Medical Research is a peer reviewed scholarly journal and is the leading vehicle for articles in all the main areas of medical statistics and an essential reference for all medical statisticians. This unique journal is devoted solely to statistics and medicine and aims to keep professionals abreast of the many powerful statistical techniques now available to the medical profession. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
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