A tutorial for propensity score weighting methods under violations of the positivity assumption
正值性假设违反时的倾向得分加权方法教程AI 解读 ↓
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确讨论正值性违反、处理效应目标和倾向得分加权的因果推断。
正值性假设违反时的倾向得分加权方法教程AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Violations of the positivity assumption can render conventional causal estimands unidentifiable, including the average treatment effect (ATE), the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), and the average treatment effect on the controls (ATC). Shifting the inferential focus to their alternative counterparts -- the weighted ATE (WATE), the weighted ATT (WATT), and the weighted ATC (WATC) -- offers valuable insights into treatment effects while preserving internal validity. In this tutorial, we provide a comprehensive review of recent advances in propensity score (PS) weighting methods, along with practical guidance on how to select a primary target estimand (while other estimands serve as supplementary analyses), implement the corresponding PS-weighted estimators, and conduct post-weighting diagnostic assessments. The tutorial is accompanied by a user-friendly R package, ChiPS. We demonstrate the pertinence of various estimators through extensive simulation studies. We illustrate the flow of the tutorial on two real-world case studies: (i) Effect of smoking on blood lead level using data from the 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); and (ii) Impact of history of sex work on HIV status among transgender women in South Africa.