Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Oct 1;182(7):651-9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv108. Epub 2015 Aug 1.

Regularized Regression Versus the High-Dimensional Propensity Score for Confounding Adjustment in Secondary Database Analyses.

Abstract

Selection and measurement of confounders is critical for successful adjustment in nonrandomized studies. Although the principles behind confounder selection are now well established, variable selection for confounder adjustment remains a difficult problem in practice, particularly in secondary analyses of databases. We present a simulation study that compares the high-dimensional propensity score algorithm for variable selection with approaches that utilize direct adjustment for all potential confounders via regularized regression, including ridge regression and lasso regression. Simulations were based on 2 previously published pharmacoepidemiologic cohorts and used the plasmode simulation framework to create realistic simulated data sets with thousands of potential confounders. Performance of methods was evaluated with respect to bias and mean squared error of the estimated effects of a binary treatment. Simulation scenarios varied the true underlying outcome model, treatment effect, prevalence of exposure and outcome, and presence of unmeasured confounding. Across scenarios, high-dimensional propensity score approaches generally performed better than regularized regression approaches. However, including the variables selected by lasso regression in a regular propensity score model also performed well and may provide a promising alternative variable selection method.

KEYWORDS:

bias; confounding factors; epidemiologic methods; lasso; propensity score; simulation; variable selection

PMID:
26233956
DOI:
10.1093/aje/kwv108
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center