Estimating treatment effects with partially observed covariates using outcome regression with missing indicators

Missing data is a common issue in research using observational studies to investigate the effect of treatments on health outcomes. When missingness occurs only in the covariates, a simple approach is to use missing indicators to handle the partially observed covariates. The missing indicator approach has been criticized for giving biased results in outcome regression. However, recent papers have suggested that the missing indicator approach can provide unbiased results in propensity score analysis under certain assumptions. We consider assumptions under which the missing indicator approach can provide valid inferences, namely, (1) no unmeasured confounding within missingness patterns; either (2a) covariate values of patients with missing data were conditionally independent of treatment or (2b) these values were conditionally independent of outcome; and (3) the outcome model is correctly specified: specifically, the true outcome model does not include interactions between missing indicators and fully observed covariates. We prove that, under the assumptions above, the missing indicator approach with outcome regression can provide unbiased estimates of the average treatment effect. We use a simulation study to investigate the extent of bias in estimates of the treatment effect when the assumptions are violated and we illustrate our findings using data from electronic health records. In conclusion, the missing indicator approach can provide valid inferences for outcome regression, but the plausibility of its assumptions must first be considered carefully.     

How well can fine balance work for covariate balancing

Fine balance is a matching technique to improve covariate balance in observational studies. It constrains a match to have identical distributions for some covariates without restricting who is matched to whom. However, despite its wide application and excellent performance in practice, there is very little theory indicating when the method is likely to succeed or fail and to what extent it can remove covariate imbalance. In order to answer these questions, this paper studies the limits of what is possible for covariate balancing using fine balance and near-fine balance. The investigations suggest that given the distributions of the treated and control groups, in large samples, the maximum achievable balance by using fine balance only depends on the matching ratio (ie, the ratio of the sample size of the control group to that of the treated group). In addition, the results indicate how to estimate this matching ratio threshold without knowledge of the true distributions in finite samples. The findings are also illustrated by numerical studies in this paper.     

Estimation of the odds ratio in a proportional odds model with censored time-lagged outcome in a randomized clinical trial

In many randomized clinical trials of therapeutics for COVID-19, the primary outcome is an ordinal categorical variable, and interest focuses on the odds ratio (OR; active agent vs control) under the assumption of a proportional odds model. Although at the final analysis the outcome will be determined for all subjects, at an interim analysis, the status of some participants may not yet be determined, for example, because ascertainment of the outcome may not be possible until some prespecified follow-up time. Accordingly, the outcome from these subjects can be viewed as censored. A valid interim analysis can be based on data only from those subjects with full follow-up; however, this approach is inefficient, as it does not exploit additional information that may be available on those for whom the outcome is not yet available at the time of the interim analysis. Appealing to the theory of semiparametrics, we propose an estimator for the OR in a proportional odds model with censored, time-lagged categorical outcome that incorporates additional baseline and time-dependent covariate information and demonstrate that it can result in considerable gains in efficiency relative to simpler approaches. A byproduct of the approach is a covariate-adjusted estimator for the OR based on the full data that would be available at a final analysis.     

Dose–response relationship from longitudinal data with response‐dependent dose modification using likelihood methods

In some clinical trials or clinical practice, the therapeutic agent is administered repeatedly, and doses are adjusted in each patient based on repeatedly measured continuous responses, to maintain the response levels in a target range. Because a lower dose tends to be selected for patients with a better outcome, simple summarizations may wrongly show a better outcome for the lower dose, producing an incorrect dose–response relationship. In this study, we consider the dose–response relationship under these situations. We show that maximum‐likelihood estimates are consistent without modeling the dose‐modification mechanisms when the selection of the dose as a time‐dependent covariate is based only on observed, but not on unobserved, responses, and measurements are generated based on administered doses. We confirmed this property by performing simulation studies under several dose‐modification mechanisms. We examined an autoregressive linear mixed effects model. The model represents profiles approaching each patient's asymptote when identical doses are repeatedly administered. The model takes into account the previous dose history and provides a dose–response relationship of the asymptote as a summary measure. We also examined a linear mixed effects model assuming all responses are measured at steady state. In the simulation studies, the estimates of both the models were unbiased under the dose modification based on observed responses, but biased under the dose modification based on unobserved responses. In conclusion, the maximum‐likelihood estimates of the dose–response relationship are consistent under the dose modification based only on observed responses.     

Use of Biometric Characteristics of Major Salivary Glands as a Baseline to Develop a Formula for the Quantitative Estimation of Posttraumatic Regeneration of Glandular Tissue

In experiments conducted on 903 rats, we studied the biometric characteristics of the major salivary glands (parotid, submandibular, and sublingual glands) during ontogenesis. We calculated the indices of nondirectional fluctuation asymmetry for the submandibular and sublingual glands and determined correlation coefficients and the coefficients of linear regression between salivary glands, rat body weight, and the weight of the femoral bone (the largest bone in the rat). The strongest correlation was found between the dry weight of the submandibular gland and the rat body weight. Mathematical analysis of the growth of the submandibular gland after sialotomy allowed us to derive a formula for the quantitative estimation of regeneration, taking into account the natural growth of the rat.     

Using aggregate data to estimate the standard error of a treatment–covariate interaction in an individual patient data meta‐analysis

Subgroup analyses are important to medical research because they shed light on the heterogeneity of treatment effectts. A treatment–covariate interaction in an individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis is the most reliable means to estimate how a subgroup factor modifies a treatment's effectiveness. However, owing to the challenges in collecting participant data, an approach based on aggregate data might be the only option. In these circumstances, it would be useful to assess the relative efficiency and power loss of a subgroup analysis without patient‐level data. We present methods that use aggregate data to estimate the standard error of an IPD meta‐analysis’ treatment–covariate interaction for regression models of a continuous or dichotomous patient outcome. Numerical studies indicate that the estimators have good accuracy. An application to a previously published meta‐regression illustrates the practical utility of the methodology.     

Estimating the area under the ROC curve when transporting a prediction model to a target population

We propose methods for estimating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of a prediction model in a target population that differs from the source population that provided the data used for original model development. If covariates that are associated with model performance, as measured by the AUC, have a different distribution in the source and target populations, then AUC estimators that only use data from the source population will not reflect model performance in the target population. Here, we provide identification results for the AUC in the target population when outcome and covariate data are available from the sample of the source population, but only covariate data are available from the sample of the target population. In this setting, we propose three estimators for the AUC in the target population and show that they are consistent and asymptotically normal. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the estimators using simulations and use them to estimate the AUC in a nationally representative target population from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for a lung cancer risk prediction model developed using source population data from the National Lung Screening Trial.