Cargando…

Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios

BACKGROUND: Estimations of causal effects from observational data are subject to various sources of bias. One method for adjusting for the residual biases in the estimation of treatment effects is through the use of negative control outcomes, which are outcomes not believed to be affected by the tre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hwang, Hon, Quiroz, Juan C., Gallego, Blanca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35896966
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01687-6
_version_ 1784757476340531200
author Hwang, Hon
Quiroz, Juan C.
Gallego, Blanca
author_facet Hwang, Hon
Quiroz, Juan C.
Gallego, Blanca
author_sort Hwang, Hon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Estimations of causal effects from observational data are subject to various sources of bias. One method for adjusting for the residual biases in the estimation of treatment effects is through the use of negative control outcomes, which are outcomes not believed to be affected by the treatment of interest. The empirical calibration procedure is a technique that uses negative control outcomes to calibrate p-values. An extension of this technique calibrates the coverage of the 95% confidence interval of a treatment effect estimate by using negative control outcomes as well as positive control outcomes, which are outcomes for which the treatment of interest has known effects. Although empirical calibration has been used in several large observational studies, there is no systematic examination of its effect under different bias scenarios. METHODS: The effect of empirical calibration of confidence intervals was analyzed using simulated datasets with known treatment effects. The simulations consisted of binary treatment and binary outcome, with biases resulting from unmeasured confounder, model misspecification, measurement error, and lack of positivity. The performance of the empirical calibration was evaluated by determining the change in the coverage of the confidence interval and the bias in the treatment effect estimate. RESULTS: Empirical calibration increased coverage of the 95% confidence interval of the treatment effect estimate under most bias scenarios but was inconsistent in adjusting the bias in the treatment effect estimate. Empirical calibration of confidence intervals was most effective when adjusting for the unmeasured confounding bias. Suitable negative controls had a large impact on the adjustment made by empirical calibration, but small improvements in the coverage of the outcome of interest were also observable when using unsuitable negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: This work adds evidence to the efficacy of empirical calibration of the confidence intervals in observational studies. Calibration of confidence intervals is most effective where there are biases due to unmeasured confounding. Further research is needed on the selection of suitable negative controls. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01687-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9327283
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93272832022-07-28 Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios Hwang, Hon Quiroz, Juan C. Gallego, Blanca BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Estimations of causal effects from observational data are subject to various sources of bias. One method for adjusting for the residual biases in the estimation of treatment effects is through the use of negative control outcomes, which are outcomes not believed to be affected by the treatment of interest. The empirical calibration procedure is a technique that uses negative control outcomes to calibrate p-values. An extension of this technique calibrates the coverage of the 95% confidence interval of a treatment effect estimate by using negative control outcomes as well as positive control outcomes, which are outcomes for which the treatment of interest has known effects. Although empirical calibration has been used in several large observational studies, there is no systematic examination of its effect under different bias scenarios. METHODS: The effect of empirical calibration of confidence intervals was analyzed using simulated datasets with known treatment effects. The simulations consisted of binary treatment and binary outcome, with biases resulting from unmeasured confounder, model misspecification, measurement error, and lack of positivity. The performance of the empirical calibration was evaluated by determining the change in the coverage of the confidence interval and the bias in the treatment effect estimate. RESULTS: Empirical calibration increased coverage of the 95% confidence interval of the treatment effect estimate under most bias scenarios but was inconsistent in adjusting the bias in the treatment effect estimate. Empirical calibration of confidence intervals was most effective when adjusting for the unmeasured confounding bias. Suitable negative controls had a large impact on the adjustment made by empirical calibration, but small improvements in the coverage of the outcome of interest were also observable when using unsuitable negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: This work adds evidence to the efficacy of empirical calibration of the confidence intervals in observational studies. Calibration of confidence intervals is most effective where there are biases due to unmeasured confounding. Further research is needed on the selection of suitable negative controls. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01687-6. BioMed Central 2022-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9327283/ /pubmed/35896966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01687-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hwang, Hon
Quiroz, Juan C.
Gallego, Blanca
Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
title Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
title_full Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
title_fullStr Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
title_short Assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
title_sort assessing the effectiveness of empirical calibration under different bias scenarios
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35896966
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01687-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hwanghon assessingtheeffectivenessofempiricalcalibrationunderdifferentbiasscenarios
AT quirozjuanc assessingtheeffectivenessofempiricalcalibrationunderdifferentbiasscenarios
AT gallegoblanca assessingtheeffectivenessofempiricalcalibrationunderdifferentbiasscenarios