A comparison of confounder selection and adjustment methods for estimating causal effects using large healthcare databases. Issue 4 (7th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Benasseur, Imane; Talbot, Denis; Durand, Madeleine; Holbrook, Anne; Matteau, Alexis; Potter, Brian J.; Renoux, Christel; Schnitzer, Mireille E.; Tarride, Jean‐Éric; Guertin, Jason R.
• Is Part Of: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Volume 31:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 424
• Page End: 433
• Publication Date: 2022-01-07
• Subjects: algorithms -- biostatistics -- confounding factors -- machine learning -- pharmacoepidemiology -- propensity score; Pharmacoepidemiology -- Periodicals; Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 615.705
• DOI: 10.1002/pds.5403
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-8569

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Confounding adjustment is required to estimate the effect of an exposure on an outcome in observational studies. However, variable selection and unmeasured confounding are particularly challenging when analyzing large healthcare data. Machine learning methods may help address these challenges. The objective was to evaluate the capacity of such methods to select confounders and reduce unmeasured confounding bias. Methods: A simulation study with known true effects was conducted. Completely synthetic and partially synthetic data incorporating real large healthcare data were generated. We compared Bayesian adjustment for confounding (BAC), generalized Bayesian causal effect estimation (GBCEE), Group Lasso and Doubly robust estimation, high‐dimensional propensity score (hdPS), and scalable collaborative targeted maximum likelihood algorithms. For the hdPS, two adjustment approaches targeting the effect in the whole population were considered: Full matching and inverse probability weighting. Results: In scenarios without hidden confounders, most methods were essentially unbiased. The bias and variance of the hdPS varied considerably according to the number of variables selected by the algorithm. In scenarios with hidden confounders, substantial bias reduction was achieved by using machine‐learning methods to identify proxies as compared to adjusting only by observed confounders. hdPS and Group Lasso performed poorly in the partially synthetic simulation. BAC, GBCEE, and scalable collaborative‐targeted maximum likelihood algorithms performed particularly well. Conclusions: Machine learning can help to identify measured confounders in large healthcare databases. They can also capitalize on proxies of unmeasured confounders to substantially reduce residual confounding bias.