The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Weight Trimming and Propensity Score Weighting
Open accessAbstract
Propensity score weighting is sensitive to model misspecification and outlying weights that can unduly influence results. The authors investigated whether trimming large weights downward can improve the performance of propensity score weighting and whether the benefits of trimming differ by propensity score estimation method. In a simulation study, the authors examined the performance of weight trimming following logistic regression, classification and regression trees (CART), boosted CART, and random forests to estimate propensity score weights. Results indicate that although misspecified logistic regression propensity score models yield increased bias and standard errors, weight trimming following logistic regression can improve the accuracy and precision of final parameter estimates. In contrast, weight trimming did not improve the performance of boosted CART and random forests. The performance of boosted CART and random forests without weight trimming was similar to the best performance obtainable by weight trimmed logistic regression estimated propensity scores. While trimming may be used to optimize propensity score weights estimated using logistic regression, the optimal level of trimming is difficult to determine. These results indicate that although trimming can improve inferences in some settings, in order to consistently improve the performance of propensity score weighting, analysts should focus on the procedures leading to the generation of weights (i.e., proper specification of the propensity score model) rather than relying on ad-hoc methods such as weight trimming.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
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
Self-citationUsing Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation
Rubin, D. B. (2001) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1023/a:1020363010465 · Cited by 2,228 · cited 2×
“, the weighted or matched samples), ensuring that the groups are comparable with respect to the observed covariates (see Stuart, 2010 [9], or Rubin, 2001 [10], for further discussion of propensity score diagnostics).”
BackgroundMcCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.403 · Cited by 1,317
Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology
Glynn, R. J., Schneeweiss, S., & Stürmer, T. (2006) · Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology · doi:10.1111/j.1742-7843.2006.pto_293.x · Cited by 541
Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2008) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwn184 · Cited by 76
Self-citation
Cited by
Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6607 · Cited by 4,495
Self-citationA tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models
McCaffrey, D. F., Griffin, B. A., Almirall, D., Slaughter, M. E., Ramchand, R., & Burgette, L. F. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5753 · Cited by 1,450
Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights
Li, F., & Thomas, L. E. (2018) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwy201 · Cited by 694
Desai, R. J., & Franklin, J. M. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l5657 · Cited by 657
Lindahl, B., Baron, T., Erlinge, D., Hadziosmanovic, N., Nordenskjöld, A., Gard, A., & Jernberg, T. (2017) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.116.026336 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, B. K., Lessler, J., & Stuart, E. A.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-03-31
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e18174
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2060316606
- Cited by
- 500
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Weight Trimming and Propensity Score Weighting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0018174
- The paper
- Lee, B. K., Lessler, J., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Weight Trimming and Propensity Score Weighting. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018174
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.