Confounding adjustment methods for multi-level treatment comparisons under lack of positivity and unknown model specification

References

• A. Abadie and G.W. Imbens, Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects, Econometrica 74 (2006), pp. 235–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Abadie and G.W. Imbens, Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects, J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 29 (2011), pp. 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.C. Arienti, S.G. Cumming and S. Boutin, Empirical models of forest fire initial attack success probabilities: the effects of fuels, anthropogenic linear features, fire weather, and management, Canadian J. Forest Res. 36 (2006), pp. 3155–3166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.C. Austin, The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61 (2008), pp. 537–545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.C. Austin, The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies, Stat. Med. 29 (2010), pp. 2137–2148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.C. Austin, P. Grootendorst and G.M. Anderson, A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study, Stat. Med. 26 (2007), pp. 734–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Cumming, Effective fire suppression in boreal forests, Canadian J. Forest Res. 35 (2005), pp. 772–786.
   Google Scholar
• P. Feng, X.H. Zhou, Q.M. Zou, M.Y. Fan and X.S. Li, Generalized propensity score for estimating the average treatment effect of multiple treatments, Stat. Med. 31 (2012), pp. 681–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Frölich, Programme evaluation with multiple treatments, J. Econ. Surv. 18 (2004), pp. 181–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. L. Gadbury, Q. Xiang, L. Yang, S. Barnes, G. P. Page, D. B. Allison and G. Gibson, Evaluating statistical methods using plasmode data sets in the age of massive public databases: an illustration using false discovery rates, PLoS Genet. 4 (2008), p. e1000098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U. Halekoh, S. Højsgaard and J. Yan. The r package geepack for generalized estimating equations, J. Stat. Softw. 15 (2006), pp. 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Hernán and J. Robins, Causal Inference: What If, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• S. Holm, A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, Scandinavian J. Stat. 6 (1979), pp. 65–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.G. Horvitz and D.J. Thompson, A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47 (1952), pp. 663–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Huber, M. Lechner and C. Wunsch, The performance of estimators based on the propensity score, J. Econom. 175 (2013), pp. 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.D. Kang and J.L. Schafer, Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data, Stat. Sci. 22 (2007), pp. 523–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E.H. Kennedy, Semiparametric theory and empirical processes in causal inference, in Statistical Causal Inferences and Their Applications in Public Health Research, H. He, P. Wu, D.-G. Chen, eds., Springer, Cham, 2016, pp. 141–167.
   Google Scholar
• C. Kooperberg, polspline: Polynomial Spline Routines, R package version 1.1.14, 2019. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=polspline.
   Google Scholar
• C. Kooperberg, S. Bose and C.J. Stone, Polychotomous regression, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 92 (1997), pp. 117–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Kreif, S. Gruber, R. Radice, R. Grieve and J.S. Sekhon, Evaluating treatment effectiveness under model misspecification: a comparison of targeted maximum likelihood estimation with bias-corrected matching, Stat. Methods. Med. Res. 25 (2016), pp. 2315–2336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Li and T. Greene, A weighting analogue to pair matching in propensity score analysis, Int. J. Biostat. 9 (2013), pp. 215–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• F. Li and F. Li, Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments, Ann. Appl. Stat. 13 (2019), pp. 2389–2415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. Li, K.L. Morgan and A.M. Zaslavsky, Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113 (2018), pp. 390–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Liaw and M. Wiener, Classification and regression by randomforest, R News 2 (2002), pp. 18–22. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/.
   Google Scholar
• M.J. Lopez and R. Gutman, Estimation of causal effects with multiple treatments: a review and new ideas, Stat. Sci. 32 (2017), pp. 432–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.K. Lunceford and M. Davidian, Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study, Stat. Med. 23 (2004), pp. 2937–2960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.A. Luque-Fernandez, M. Schomaker, B. Rachet and M.E. Schnitzer, Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for a binary treatment: A tutorial, Stat. Med. 37 (2018), pp. 2530–2546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Mao, L. Li and T. Greene, Propensity score weighting analysis and treatment effect discovery, Stat. Methods. Med. Res. 28 (2019), pp. 2439–2454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E.E. Moodie, T.S. Richardson and D.A. Stephens, Demystifying optimal dynamic treatment regimes, Biometrics 63 (2007), pp. 447–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.A. Murphy, Optimal dynamic treatment regimes, J. R. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.) 65 (2003), pp. 331–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Polley, E. LeDell, C. Kennedy and M. van der Laan, SuperLearner: Super Learner Prediction, R package version 2.0-24, 2018. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SuperLearner.
   Google Scholar
• J.M. Robins, Marginal structural models, in Proceedings of the Section on Bayesian Statistical Science, Vol. 1997, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, 1998, pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• J.M. Robins, Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference, in Statistical Models in Epidemiology, the Environment, and Clinical Trials, M. Halloran and B. Donald, eds., Springer, New York, 2000, pp. 95–133.
   Google Scholar
• J.M. Robins, Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions, Proceedings of the Second Seattle Symposium in Biostatistics, D. Lin, P.J. Heagerty, eds., Springer, New York, 2004, pp. 189–326.
   Google Scholar
• A.D. Scotina, F.L. Beaudoin and R. Gutman, Matching estimators for causal effects of multiple treatments, Stat. Methods. Med. Res. 29 (2019), pp. 1051–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. A. Siddique, M. E Schnitzer, A. Bahamyirou, G. Wang, T. H Holtz, G. B Migliori, G. Sotgiu, N. R Gandhi, M. H Vargas, D. Menzies and A. Benedetti, Causal inference with multiple concurrent medications: a comparison of methods and an application in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, Stat. Methods. Med. Res. 28 (2019), pp. 3534–3549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P-O. Tremblay, T. Duchesne, S. G. Cumming and J. A. Jones, Survival analysis and classification methods for forest fire size, PLoS One 13 (2018), p. e0189860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.J. Van der Laan, E.C. Polley and A.E. Hubbard, Super learner, Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 6 (2007), Article 25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.J. Van der Laan and S. Rose, Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data, Springer, New York, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• M.J. Van Der Laan and D. Rubin, Targeted maximum likelihood learning, Int. J. Biostat. 2 (2006), p. 28.
   Google Scholar
• Wildfire Management Branch – Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Historical Wildfire Database, 2015. Available at http://wildfire.alberta.ca/resources/historical-data/historical-wildfire-database.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• S. Yang, G.W. Imbens, Z. Cui, D.E. Faries and Z. Kadziola, Propensity score matching and subclassification in observational studies with multi-level treatments, Biometrics 72 (2016), pp. 1055–1065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Yoshida, S. Hernández-Díaz, D.H. Solomon, J.W. Jackson, J.J. Gagne, R.J. Glynn and J.M. Franklin, Matching weights to simultaneously compare three treatment groups: comparison to three-way matching, Epidemiology 28 (2017), pp. 387–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Zou, Assessment of risks by predicting counterfactuals, Stat. Med. 28 (2009), pp. 3761–3781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar