G-computation and doubly robust standardisation for continuous-time data: A comparison with inverse probability weighting

Abstract

In time-to-event settings, g-computation and doubly robust estimators are based on discrete-time data. However, many biological processes are evolving continuously over time. In this paper, we extend the g-computation and the doubly robust standardisation procedures to a continuous-time context. We compare their performance to the well-known inverse-probability-weighting estimator for the estimation of the hazard ratio and restricted mean survival times difference, using a simulation study. Under a correct model specification, all methods are unbiased, but g-computation and the doubly robust standardisation are more efficient than inverse-probability-weighting. We also analyse two real-world datasets to illustrate the practical implementation of these approaches. We have updated the R package RISCA to facilitate the use of these methods and their dissemination.

Keywords

Causal inference parametric g-formula propensity score restricted mean survival time simulation study

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sherman

Anderson

Dal Pan

et al. Real-world evidence – what is it and what can it tell us?. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 2293–2297. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1609216.

Hernán

. A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58: 265–271. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2002.006361.

Rosenbaum

Rubin

. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41–55. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.

Robins

Hernán

Brumback

. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 550–560. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011.

Lunceford

Davidian

. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2937–2960. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1903.

Vansteelandt

Daniel

. On regression adjustment for the propensity score. Stat Med 2014; 33: 4053–4072. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6207.

Ali

Groenwold

RHH

Belitser

et al. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 112–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.011.

Le Borgne

Giraudeau

Querard

et al. Comparisons of the performance of different statistical tests for time-to-event analysis with confounding factors: practical illustrations in kidney transplantation. Stat Med 2016; 35: 1103–1116. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6777.

Hajage

Tubach

Steg

et al. On the use of propensity scores in case of rare exposure. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 38. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0135-1.

10.

Austin

. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med 2013; 32: 2837–2849. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5705.

11.

King

Nielsen

. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Polit Anal 2019; 27: 434–454. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2019.11.

12.

Robins

. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period-application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model 1986; 7: 1393–1512. DOI: 10.1016/0270-0255(86)90088-6.

13.

Snowden

Rose

Mortimer

. Implementation of g-computation on a simulated data set: Demonstration of a causal inference technique. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173: 731–738. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq472.

14.

Keil

Edwards

Richardson

et al. The parametric g-formula for time-to-event data: towards intuition with a worked example. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 889–897. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000160.

15.

Wen

Young

Robins

et al. Parametric g-formula implementations for causal survival analyses. Biometrics 2021; 77: 740–753. DOI: 10.1111/biom.13321.

16.

Breskin

Edmonds

Cole

et al. G-computation for policy-relevant effects of interventions on time-to-event outcomes. Int J Epidemiol 2021; 49: 2021–2029. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyaa156.

17.

Sjölander

Dahlqwist

Zetterqvist

. A note on the noncollapsibility of rate differences and rate ratios. Epidemiology 2016; 27: 356–359. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000433.

18.

Gollob

Reichardt

. Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Dev 1987; 58: 80–92. DOI: 10.2307/1130293.

19.

Kreif

DiazOrdaz

. Machine learning in policy evaluation: New tools for causal inference. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance 2019. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.256.

20.

Tan

. Comment: Understanding OR, PS and DR. Stat Sci 2007; 22: 560–568. DOI: 10.1214/07-STS227A.

21.

Lendle

Fireman

van der Laan

. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation in safety analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: S91–S98. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.017.

22.

Vansteelandt

Keiding

. Invited commentary: G-computation-lost in translation?. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173: 739–742. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq474.

23.

Chatton

Le Borgne

Leyrat

et al. G-computation, propensity score-based methods, and targeted maximum likelihood estimator for causal inference with different covariates sets: a comparative simulation study. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 9219. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65917-x.

24.

Hernán

Brumback

Robins

. Marginal structural models to estimate the joint causal effect of nonrandomized treatments. J Am Stat Assoc 2001; 96: 440–448. DOI: 10.1198/016214501753168154.

25.

Aalen

Cook

Røysland

. Does cox analysis of a randomized survival study yield a causal treatment effect?. Lifetime Data Anal 2015; 21: 579–593. DOI: 10.1007/s10985-015-9335-y.

26.

Hernán

. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 13–15. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43.

27.

Schemper

Wakounig

Heinze

. The estimation of average hazard ratios by weighted cox regression. Stat Med 2009; 28: 2473–2489. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3623.

28.

Royston

Parmar

. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 152. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-152.

29.

Poole

. On the origin of risk relativism. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 3–9. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30eba.

30.

Sjölander

. Estimation of causal effect measures with the R-package stdreg. Eur J Epidemiol 2018; 33: 847–858. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-018-0375-y.

31.

Ross

Raebel

et al. Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health 2010; 13: 273–277. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00671.x.

32.

Cole

Hernán

. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004; 75: 45–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.10.004.

33.

Breslow

. Discussion of the paper by D. R. Cox. J R Stat Soc Series B 1972; 34: 216–217. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00900.x.

34.

LuqueFernandez

Schomaker

Rachet

et al. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for a binary treatment: A tutorial. Stat Med 2018; 37: 2530–2546. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7628.

35.

Hernán

Hernández-Díaz

Robins

. Randomized trials analyzed as observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013, 159, 560–2. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-8-201310150-00709.

36.

Hudgens

Halloran

. Toward causal inference with interference. J Am Stat Assoc 2008; 103: 832–842. DOI: 10.1198/016214508000000292.

37.

Austin

. Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (iptw) with survival analysis. Stat Med 2016; 35: 5642–5655. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7084.

38.

Morris

White

Crowther

. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat Med 2019; 38: 2074–2102. DOI: 10.1002/sim.8086.

39.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014.

40.

Laplaud

Casey

Barbin

et al. Comparative effectiveness of teriflunomide vs dimethyl fumarate in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2019; 93: 1–12. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007938.

41.

Masset

Boucquemont

Garandeau

et al. Induction therapy in elderly kidney transplant recipients with low immunological risk. Transplantation 2020; 104: 613–622. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002804.

42.

VanderWeele

Shpitser

. A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics 2011; 67: 1406–1413. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01619.x.

43.

Martinussen

Vansteelandt

Andersen

. Subtleties in the interpretation of hazard contrasts. Lifetime Data Anal 2020; 26: 833–855. DOI: 10.1007/s10985-020-09501-5.

44.

Petersen

Porter

Gruber

et al. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Stat Methods Med Res 2012; 21: 31–54. DOI: 10.1177/0962280210386207.

45.

Conner

Sullivan

Benjamin

et al. Adjusted restricted mean survival times in observational studies. Stat Med 2019; 38: 3832–3860. DOI: 10.1002/sim.8206.

46.

Hajage

Chauvet

Belin

et al. Closed-form variance estimator for weighted propensity score estimators with survival outcome. Biom J 2018; 60: 1151–1163. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201700330.

47.

Efron

. Estimation and accuracy after model selection. J Am Stat Assoc 2014; 109: 991–1007. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2013.823775.

48.

Blakely

Lynch

Simons

et al. Reflection on modern methods: when worlds collide—prediction, machine learning and causal inference. Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49: 2058–2064. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyz132.

49.

Le Borgne

Chatton

Léger

et al. G-computation and machine learning for estimating the causal effects of binary exposure statuses on binary outcomes. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 1435. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81110-0.

50.

Kang

JDY

Schafer

. Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Stat Sci 2007; 22: 523–539. DOI: 10.1214/07-STS227.

51.

Kreif

Gruber

Radice

et al. Evaluating treatment effectiveness under model misspecification: A comparison of targeted maximum likelihood estimation with bias-corrected matching. Stat Methods Med Res 2016; 25: 2315–2336. DOI: 10.1177/0962280214521341.

52.

Díaz

Colantuoni

Hanley

et al. Improved precision in the analysis of randomized trials with survival outcomes, without assuming proportional hazards. Lifetime Data Anal 2019; 25: 439–468. DOI: 10.1007/s10985-018-9428-5.

53.

Benkeser

Carone

Gilbert

. Improved estimation of the cumulative incidence of rare outcomes. Stat Med 2018; 37: 280–293. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7337.

54.

Keil

Edwards

. A review of time scale fundamentals in the g-formula and insidious selection bias. Current epidemiology reports 2018, 5, 205–213. DOI: 10.1007/s40471-018-0153-0.

55.

Young

Stensrud

Tchetgen Tchetgen

et al. A causal framework for classical statistical estimands in failure time settings with competing events. Stat Med 2020; 39: 1199–1236. DOI: 10.1002/sim.8471.

56.

Daniel

Cousens

De Stavola

et al. Methods for dealing with time-dependent confounding. Stat Med 2013; 32: 1584–1618. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5686.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.01 MB

0.00 MB

0.96 MB