跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究观察数据中高维混杂调整与平均因果效应估计,比较双重稳健方法及交叉拟合的因果推断表现。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Susan Ellul
Stijn Vansteelandt
John B. Carlin

高维混杂下的因果机器学习方法与交叉拟合

研究问题
在混杂变量较多或混杂关系复杂的观察研究中,AIPW 与 TMLE 如何表现,交叉拟合折数及集成学习器库选择有何影响?
方法与思路
作者以早期生命队列研究为动机开展模拟,比较 AIPW 与 TMLE 的平均因果效应估计,并改变交叉拟合折数及 Super Learner 库。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称两种方法多数场景表现接近,TMLE 更稳定;交叉拟合主要改善方差估计和覆盖率,复杂场景中完整学习器库较有益。
阅读关注点
应核对模拟中的混杂维度、样本量与重叠情况、学习器库组成,以及交叉拟合的实施方式、覆盖率标准和稳定性衡量。
阅读边界
这是 arXiv 预印本,不能据此认定已同行评审或期刊接收;摘要未提供模拟参数与数值,结果不能推广到所有高维场景。

原文摘要

Observational epidemiological studies commonly seek to estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Adjustment for potential confounding bias in modern studies is challenging due to the presence of high-dimensional confounding, which occurs when there are many confounders relative to sample size or complex relationships between continuous confounders and exposure and outcome. Doubly robust methods such as Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW) and Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) have the potential to address these challenges, using data-adaptive approaches and cross-fitting, but despite recent advances limited evaluation and guidance are available on their implementation in realistic settings where high-dimensional confounding is present. Motivated by an early-life cohort study, we conducted an extensive simulation study to compare the relative performance of AIPW and TMLE using data-adaptive approaches for estimating the average causal effect (ACE). We evaluated the benefits of using cross-fitting with a varying number of folds, as well as the impact of using a reduced versus full (larger, more diverse) library in the Super Learner ensemble learning approach used for implementation. We found that AIPW and TMLE performed similarly in most cases for estimating the ACE, but TMLE was more stable. Cross-fitting improved the performance of both methods, but was more important for variance estimation and coverage than for point estimates, with the number of folds a less important consideration. Using a full Super Learner library was important to reduce bias and variance in complex scenarios typical of modern health research studies.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文