Effect Estimation in Point-Exposure Studies with Binary Outcomes and High-Dimensional Covariate Data – A Comparison of Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting

Pang Menglan, Schuster Tibor, Filion Kristian B., Schnitzer Mireille E., Eberg Maria and Platt Robert W. ()
Additional contact information
Pang Menglan: Centre For Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Schuster Tibor: Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Filion Kristian B.: Centre For Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Schnitzer Mireille E.: Faculté de pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Eberg Maria: Centre For Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Platt Robert W.: Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

The International Journal of Biostatistics, 2016, vol. 12, issue 2, 12

Abstract: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) are relatively new methods proposed for estimating marginal causal effects. TMLE is doubly robust, yielding consistent estimators even under misspecification of either the treatment or the outcome model. While IPW methods are known to be sensitive to near violations of the practical positivity assumption (e. g., in the case of data sparsity), the consequences of this violation in the TMLE framework for binary outcomes have been less widely investigated. As near practical positivity violations are particularly likely in high-dimensional covariate settings, a better understanding of the performance of TMLE is of particular interest for pharmcoepidemiological studies using large databases. Using plasmode and Monte-Carlo simulation studies, we evaluated the performance of TMLE compared to that of IPW estimators based on a point-exposure cohort study of the marginal causal effect of post-myocardial infarction statin use on the 1-year risk of all-cause mortality from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. A variety of treatment model specifications were considered, inducing different degrees of near practical non-positivity. Our simulation study showed that the performance of the TMLE and IPW estimators were comparable when the dimension of the fitted treatment model was small to moderate; however, they differed when a large number of covariates was considered. When a rich outcome model was included in the TMLE, estimators were unbiased. In some cases, we found irregular bias and large standard errors with both methods even with a correctly specified high-dimensional treatment model. The IPW estimator showed a slightly better root MSE with high-dimensional treatment model specifications in our simulation setting. In conclusion, for estimation of the marginal expectation of the outcome under a fixed treatment, TMLE and IPW estimators employing the same treatment model specification may perform differently due to differential sensitivity to practical positivity violations; however, TMLE, being doubly robust, shows improved performance with richer specifications of the outcome model. Although TMLE is appealing for its double robustness property, such violations in a high-dimensional covariate setting are problematic for both methods.

Keywords: targeted maximum likelihood estimation; inverse probability weighting; non-positivity; doubly robust estimator; plasmode simulation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2015-0034 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:12:y:2016:i:2:p:12:n:4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ijb/html

DOI: 10.1515/ijb-2015-0034

Access Statistics for this article

The International Journal of Biostatistics is currently edited by Antoine Chambaz, Alan E. Hubbard and Mark J. van der Laan

More articles in The International Journal of Biostatistics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().