Living forwards or understanding backwards? A comparison of Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting and G-estimation methods for targeting hypothetical full adherence estimands in longitudinal cohort studies

Xiaoran Liang; Deniz Türkmen; Jane A H Masoli; Luke C Pilling; Jack Bowden

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.06916

Living forwards or understanding backwards? A comparison of Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting and G-estimation methods for targeting hypothetical full adherence estimands in longitudinal cohort studies

Xiaoran Liang·Deniz Türkmen·Jane A H Masoli·Luke C Pilling·Jack Bowden

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Medication adherence is essential to ensure treatment effectiveness, but too often in routine care non-adherence compromises the desired outcome. We explore longitudinal causal modelling using observational data to estimate the time-varying effects of continuous drug adherence measures on health outcomes over a sustained period. The goal of such analyses is to quantify the potential impact of interventions to improve adherence on long-term health. We consider two established longitudinal causal approaches designed to handle time-varying confounding under the ``no unmeasured confounding'' (NUC) assumption: G-estimation and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). In randomized controlled trial, NUC-based methods have been applied to address non-adherence as an intercurrent event, and instrumental variable (IV) extensions of G-estimation have also been introduced for settings where the NUC assumption may fail. We adapt these methods to observational data settings and illustrate their use for assessing how adherence over time impacts health outcomes. We align the causal parameters across methods and show they can target the same causal estimand: the average effect among treated individuals of full adherence versus zero adherence. We set out the identification conditions for IPTW and G-estimation under NUC, and for an IV-based extension that has specific utility when the NUC assumption is implausible. We assess the statistical properties, strengths and weaknesses of each approach through Monte Carlo simulations designed to reflect longitudinal studies with a continuous exposure. We demonstrate these methods by quantifying the effect of full statin adherence on LDL cholesterol control in 13,000 UK Biobank participants with linked primary care data.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME stat.AP

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Xiaoran Liang, Deniz Türkmen, Jane A H Masoli, Luke C Pilling, Jack Bowden. 2026-03-06. Living forwards or understanding backwards? A comparison of Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting and G-estimation methods for targeting hypothetical full adherence estimands in longitudinal cohort studies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06916

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗