The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study
Open accessAbstract
Background: In propensity score modeling, it is a standard practice to optimize the prediction of exposure status based on the covariate information. In a simulation study, we examined in what situations analyses based on various types of exposure propensity score (EPS) models using data mining techniques such as recursive partitioning (RP) and neural networks (NN) produce unbiased and/or efficient results. Method: We simulated data for a hypothetical cohort study (n = 2000) with a binary exposure/outcome and 10 binary/continuous covariates with seven scenarios differing by non‐linear and/or non‐additive associations between exposure and covariates. EPS models used logistic regression (LR) (all possible main effects), RP1 (without pruning), RP2 (with pruning), and NN. We calculated c‐statistics (C), standard errors (SE), and bias of exposure‐effect estimates from outcome models for the PS‐matched dataset. Results: Data mining techniques yielded higher C than LR (mean: NN, 0.86; RPI, 0.79; RP2, 0.72; and LR, 0.76). SE tended to be greater in models with higher C. Overall bias was small for each strategy, although NN estimates tended to be the least biased. C was not correlated with the magnitude of bias (correlation coefficient [COR] = −0.3, p = 0.1) but increased SE (COR = 0.7, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Effect estimates from EPS models by simple LR were generally robust. NN models generally provided the least numerically biased estimates. C was not associated with the magnitude of bias but was with the increased SE. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators (2002) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321 · Cited by 15,889
R: A Language for Data Analysis and Graphics
Ihaka, R., & Gentleman, R. (1996) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713 · Cited by 11,220
Hulley, S. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.7.605 · Cited by 6,216
Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores
Rubin, D. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00064 · Cited by 2,877
Variable Selection for Propensity Score Models
Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., & Stürmer, T. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj149 · Cited by 2,336
Self-citationCepeda, M. S. (2003) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwg115 · Cited by 859
Stürmer, T., Joshi, M., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., Rothman, K. J., & Schneeweiss, S. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.004 · Cited by 670
Self-citationGoldman, L., Cook, E. F., Brand, D. A., Lee, T. H., Rouan, G. W., Weisberg, M. C., Acampora, D., Stasiulewicz, C., Walshon, J., Terranova, G., et al. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198803313181301 · Cited by 651
Self-citationAbraham, E. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)80009-4 · Cited by 624
Cited by
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Doubly robust estimation of causal effects
Funk, M. J., Westreich, D., Wiesen, C., Stürmer, T., Brookhart, M. A., & Davidian, M. (2011) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwq439 · Cited by 1,158
Self-citationThe performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios
Austin, P. C. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5705 · Cited by 1,006
Data mining techniques and applications – A decade review from 2000 to 2011
Liao, S.-H., Chu, P.-H., & Hsiao, P.-Y. (2012) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.063 · Cited by 665
Metadata
- Authors
- Setoguchi, S., Schneeweiss, S., Brookhart, M. A., Glynn, R. J., & Cook, E. F.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 546-555
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W2034309896
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 5.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.1555
- The paper
- Setoguchi, S., Schneeweiss, S., Brookhart, M. A., Glynn, R. J., & Cook, E. F. (2008). Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1555
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.