Search

Propensity score matching (PSM) and augmented inverse propensity weighting (AIPW) are widely used in observational studies to estimate causal effects. The two approaches present complementary features. The AIPW estimator is doubly robust and locally efficient but can be unstable when the propensity scores are close to zero or one due to weighting by the inverse of the propensity score. On the other hand, PSM circumvents the instability of propensity score weighting but it hinges on the correctness of the propensity score model and cannot attain the semiparametric efficiency bound. Besides, the fixed number of matches, K, renders PSM nonsmooth and thus invalidates standard nonparametric bootstrap inference. This article presents novel augmented match weighted (AMW) estimators that combine the advantages of matching and weighting estimators. AMW adheres to the form of AIPW for its double robustness and local efficiency but it mitigates the instability due to weighting. We replace inverse propensity weights with matching weights resulting from PSM with unfixed K. Meanwhile, we propose a new cross-validation procedure to select K that minimizes the mean squared error anchored around an unbiased estimator of the causal estimand. Besides, we derive the limiting distribution for the AMW estimators showing that they enjoy the double robustness property and can achieve the semiparametric efficiency bound if both nuisance models are correct. As a byproduct of unfixed K which smooths the AMW estimators, nonparametric bootstrap can be adopted for variance estimation and inference. Furthermore, simulation studies and real data applications support that the AMW estimators are stable with extreme propensity scores and their variances can be obtained by naive bootstrap.

Propensity score matching has been a long-standing tradition for handling confounding in causal inference, however requiring stringent model assumptions. In this article, we propose double score matching(DSM) for general causal estimands utilizing two balancing scores including the propensity score and prognostic score. To gain the protection of possible model misspecification, we posit multiple candidate models for each score. We show that the de-biasing DSM estimator achieves the multiple robustness property in that it is consistent for the true causal estimand if any model of the propensity score or prognostic score is correct.

The complexity of human cancer often results in significant heterogeneity in response to treatment. Precision medicine offers potential to improve patient outcomes by leveraging this heterogeneity. Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) formalize precision medicine as maps from the patient covariate space into the space of allowable treatments. The optimal ITR is that which maximizes the mean of a clinical outcome in a population of interest. Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) studies permit the evaluation of multiple treatments within a single tumor and thus are ideally suited for estimating optimal ITRs. PDX data are characterized by correlated outcomes, a high-dimensional feature space, and a large number of treatments. Existing methods for estimating optimal ITRs do not take advantage of the unique structure of PDX data or handle the associated challenges well. In this paper, we explore machine learning methods for estimating optimal ITRs from PDX data. We analyze data from a large PDX study to identify biomarkers that are informative for developing personalized treatment recommendations in multiple cancers. We estimate optimal ITRs using regression-based approaches such as Q-learning and direct search methods such as outcome weighted learning. Finally, we implement a superlearner approach to combine a set of estimated ITRs and show that the resulting ITR performs better than any of the input ITRs, mitigating uncertainty regarding user choice of any particular ITR estimation methodology. Our results indicate that PDX data are a valuable resource for developing individualized treatment strategies in oncology.

For ordinal outcomes, the average treatment effect is often ill-defined and hard to interpret. Echoing Agresti and Kateri (2017), we argue that the relative treatment effect can be a useful measure especially for ordinal outcomes, which is defined as $\gamma = \mathrm{pr}\{ Y_i(1) > Y_i(0) \} - \mathrm{pr}\{ Y_i(1) < Y_i(0) \}$, with $Y_i(1)$ and $Y_i(0)$ being the potential outcomes of unit $i$ under treatment and control, respectively. Given the marginal distributions of the potential outcomes, we derive the sharp bounds on $\gamma,$ which are identifiable parameters based on the observed data. Agresti and Kateri (2017) focused on modeling strategies under the assumption of independent potential outcomes, but we allow for arbitrary dependence., Comment: Accepted by Biometrics