Substance use : research and treatment · 2026
Comparing Regression Adjustment, Matching, and Inverse Probability Weights in Small Sub-Populations in the HIV SUCCESS Consortium: A Real-World Data Example.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Drumright Lydia N, Kyle Ryan P, Heinke Dominique, Napravnik Sonia, Chander Geetanjali, Lesko Catherine R, Baiers Ross A, Mustanski Brian, Cachay Edward, Kipke Michele, Moore Richard D, Mayer Kenneth H, Parra Luis, Fredericksen Rob J, Reisner Sari, Christopoulos Katerina, Yendewa George A, Baum Marianna, Bamford Laura, Kitahata Mari M, Saag Michael S, Crane Heidi M, Delaney Joseph A C, Whitney Bridget M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To understand the trade-offs between different statistical modeling approaches, using real world data with small sub-populations, with rare exposures and increasingly rare outcomes. In particular, to compare adjusted regression, inverse probability weighting, and matching.
METHODS: Data for these analyses came from the RADAR (N=1,134) and combined CNICS/JHHCC (N=14,434) cohorts. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for self-reported use of specific substances comparing subpopulations (SP), SP-1 vs SP-3 and SP-2 vs SP-3, where SP-1 was the largest proportion (92% in RADAR, 81% in CNICS/JHHCC), SP2 was moderate proportion (18% in CNICS/JHHCC) and SP-3 was the smallest proportion (8% in RADAR, 1% in CNICS/JHHCC) of the population. We calculated PRs using 1) unadjusted relative risk regression (RR); and adjusted estimates controlling for age, race/ethnicity, study site, and year of interview using: 2) standard adjustment in RR; 3) stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW); and 4) matching with up to 3 matches from SP-1 or SP-2 per SP-3 participant.
RESULTS: For most substances, all methods yielded consistent estimates. There were large weights in some of the IPTW analyses and in three cases these resulted in substantially divergent estimates. For the comparison between SP-1 and SP-3, the estimate for smoking was 1.3-fold greater in the matched analysis (PR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.75) than in IPTW (PR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.78-1.37 ATE and PR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.88-1.26 ATT). Even more extreme divergence in estimates was observed for differences between SP-2 and SP-3 with respect to methamphetamine/amphetamine, (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.51, 95% CI: 0.79-2.89; IPTW-ATT: PR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.36-4.12); vs Matching: PR=2.71, 95%CI: 1.47-4.99) and cocaine (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.55-2.38; IPTW-ATT: PR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.03-3.18); vs Matching: PR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.76-2.53).
CONCLUSION: The combination of a rare exposure and a rare outcome can produce challenges for commonly used confounding adjustment strategies, and it is often best to compare different modeling approaches to gain greater insight.
METHODS: Data for these analyses came from the RADAR (N=1,134) and combined CNICS/JHHCC (N=14,434) cohorts. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for self-reported use of specific substances comparing subpopulations (SP), SP-1 vs SP-3 and SP-2 vs SP-3, where SP-1 was the largest proportion (92% in RADAR, 81% in CNICS/JHHCC), SP2 was moderate proportion (18% in CNICS/JHHCC) and SP-3 was the smallest proportion (8% in RADAR, 1% in CNICS/JHHCC) of the population. We calculated PRs using 1) unadjusted relative risk regression (RR); and adjusted estimates controlling for age, race/ethnicity, study site, and year of interview using: 2) standard adjustment in RR; 3) stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW); and 4) matching with up to 3 matches from SP-1 or SP-2 per SP-3 participant.
RESULTS: For most substances, all methods yielded consistent estimates. There were large weights in some of the IPTW analyses and in three cases these resulted in substantially divergent estimates. For the comparison between SP-1 and SP-3, the estimate for smoking was 1.3-fold greater in the matched analysis (PR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.75) than in IPTW (PR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.78-1.37 ATE and PR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.88-1.26 ATT). Even more extreme divergence in estimates was observed for differences between SP-2 and SP-3 with respect to methamphetamine/amphetamine, (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.51, 95% CI: 0.79-2.89; IPTW-ATT: PR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.36-4.12); vs Matching: PR=2.71, 95%CI: 1.47-4.99) and cocaine (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.55-2.38; IPTW-ATT: PR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.03-3.18); vs Matching: PR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.76-2.53).
CONCLUSION: The combination of a rare exposure and a rare outcome can produce challenges for commonly used confounding adjustment strategies, and it is often best to compare different modeling approaches to gain greater insight.