Integrating Randomized Controlled Trial and External Control Data Using Balancing Weights: A Comparison of Estimands and Estimators
用平衡权重整合随机试验与外部对照数据:估计目标与估计量比较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:摘要直接研究随机试验与外部对照整合中的因果效应目标及平衡权重估计。
用平衡权重整合随机试验与外部对照数据:估计目标与估计量比较AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) face inherent limitations, such as ethical or resource constraints, which lead to a limited number of study participants. To address these limitations, recent research endeavors have sought to incorporate external control (EC) data, such as historical trial data or real-world data, with RCT data in treatment effect evaluation. This integration introduces unique questions regarding target population specification, causal estimand, and optimality of pooled estimators. Balancing weights have emerged as valuable tools to ensure comparability in patient characteristics, but there remains a gap in implementing them with ECs. In this study, we elucidate potential estimands of interest and propose corresponding balancing-weight-based estimators. We provide statistical and clinical definitions and interpretations of the estimands. Our extensive simulations show that different causal estimands perform differently with respect to bias and efficiency, based on the level of similarity between RCT and EC.