Cited by 64Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Ensemble learning of inverse probability weights for marginal structural modeling in large observational datasets

Open access
Gruber, Susan, Logan, Roger W., Jarrín, Inmaculada, Monge, Susana, Hernán, Miguel A.·2015·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

Inverse probability weights used to fit marginal structural models are typically estimated using logistic regression. However, a data‐adaptive procedure may be able to better exploit information available in measured covariates. By combining predictions from multiple algorithms, ensemble learning offers an alternative to logistic regression modeling to further reduce bias in estimated marginal structural model parameters. We describe the application of two ensemble learning approaches to estimating stabilized weights: super learning (SL), an ensemble machine learning approach that relies on V‐fold cross validation, and an ensemble learner (EL) that creates a single partition of the data into training and validation sets. Longitudinal data from two multicenter cohort studies in Spain (CoRIS and CoRIS‐MD) were analyzed to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for initiation versus no initiation of combined antiretroviral therapy among HIV positive subjects. Both ensemble approaches produced hazard ratio estimates further away from the null, and with tighter confidence intervals, than logistic regression modeling. Computation time for EL was less than half that of SL. We conclude that ensemble learning using a library of diverse candidate algorithms offers an alternative to parametric modeling of inverse probability weights when fitting marginal structural models. With large datasets, EL provides a rich search over the solution space in less time than SL with comparable results. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.6322

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other confounding-adjustment innovations include Bayesian trajectory modeling, machine learning for IPW and doubly robust estimators, and IPW using latent variables or marginal structural models.

    “Other innovations in confounding adjustment methods include Bayesian approaches for trajectory modeling [96, 97], machine learning to estimate weights for IPW and doubly robust estimators [98-100], and IPW approaches driven by latent variables or marginal structure models to facilitate a better understanding of selection into treatment [100-102].”

    From Difference-in-Differences for Health Policy and Practice: A Review of Modern Methods (2025) · cites this paper as [102]

    The Introduction and Section 2 describe data-adaptive ensemble learning to estimate inverse-probability weights for marginal structural models, supporting those parts of the claim. The paper does not describe its approach as a doubly robust estimator or as latent-variable-driven IPW. The Bayesian trajectory-modeling clause is cited to other sources, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 64

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Hastie T Tibshirani R Friedman J The Elements of Statistical Learning 2002 Springer Series in Statistics, Springer

Authors
Gruber, S., Logan, R. W., Jarrín, I., Monge, S., & Hernán, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
  • Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health Boston MA U.S.A.
Corresponding author
Gruber, Susan
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-15
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
106-117
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2142407737
Cited by
64
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4
FWCI
7.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01-AI073127)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
marginal structural models, ensemble learning, super learning, HIV, antiretroviral therapy initiation, mortality hazard ratio, longitudinal data, bias mitigation, machine learning
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Mortality, Probability, Spain, Models, Statistical, HIV Infections, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Confidence Intervals, Logistic Models, Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active

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