SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2406.19597

What's the Weight? Estimating Controlled Outcome Differences in Complex Surveys for Health Disparities Research

Abstract

In this work, we are motivated by the problem of estimating racial disparities in health outcomes, specifically the average controlled difference (ACD) in telomere length between Black and White individuals, using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). To do so, we build a propensity for race to properly adjust for other social determinants while characterizing the controlled effect of race on telomere length. Propensity score methods are broadly employed with observational data as a tool to achieve covariate balance, but how to implement them in complex surveys is less studied - in particular, when the survey weights depend on the group variable under comparison (as the NHANES sampling scheme depends on self-reported race). We propose identification formulas to properly estimate the ACD in outcomes between Black and White individuals, with appropriate weighting for both covariate imbalance across the two racial groups and generalizability. Via extensive simulation, we show that our proposed methods outperform traditional analytic approaches in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage when estimating the ACD for our setting of interest. In our data, we find that evidence of racial differences in telomere length between Black and White individuals attenuates after accounting for confounding by socioeconomic factors and utilizing appropriate propensity score and survey weighting techniques. Software to implement these methods and code to reproduce our results can be found in the R package svycdiff, available through the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) at cran.r-project.org/web/packages/svycdiff/, or in a development version on GitHub at github.com/salernos/svycdiff.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Stephen Salerno, Emily K. Roberts, Belinda L. Needham, Tyler H. McCormick, Fan Li, Bhramar Mukherjee, Xu Shi. 2024-06-28. What's the Weight? Estimating Controlled Outcome Differences in Complex Surveys for Health Disparities Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19597

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME