Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox...
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis01:23

Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis

Mechanistic models are utilized in individual analysis using single-source data, but imperfections arise due to data collection errors, preventing perfect prediction of observed data. The mathematical equation involves known values (Xi), observed concentrations (Ci), measurement errors (εi), model parameters (ϕj), and the related function (ƒi) for i number of values. Different least-squares metrics quantify differences between predicted and observed values. The ordinary least squares (OLS)...
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving01:29

Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving

Mechanistic models play a crucial role in algorithms for numerical problem-solving, particularly in nonlinear mixed effects modeling (NMEM). These models aim to minimize specific objective functions by evaluating various parameter estimates, leading to the development of systematic algorithms. In some cases, linearization techniques approximate the model using linear equations.
In individual population analyses, different algorithms are employed, such as Cauchy's method, which uses a...
Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data01:16

Statistical Inference Techniques in Hypothesis Testing: Parametric Versus Nonparametric Data

Statistical inference techniques, paramount in hypothesis testing, differentiate into two broad categories: parametric and nonparametric statistics.
Parametric statistics, as the name suggests, assumes that data follow a specific distribution, often a normal distribution. This assumption enables robust hypothesis testing and estimation. Parametric methods, like the Student's t-test or Goodness-of-fit test, are frequently employed in biostatistics due to their robustness. For instance, comparing...
Assumptions of Survival Analysis01:15

Assumptions of Survival Analysis

Survival models analyze the time until one or more events occur, such as death in biological organisms or failure in mechanical systems. These models are widely used across fields like medicine, biology, engineering, and public health to study time-to-event phenomena. To ensure accurate results, survival analysis relies on key assumptions and careful study design.
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prognostic score methods for the estimation of the average causal effect.

The international journal of biostatistics·2026
Same author

Covariate selection strategies and estimands - a review of current practice of risk factor analysis from a causal perspective.

BMC medical research methodology·2025
Same author

Investigations of sharp bounds for causal effects under selection bias.

Statistical methods in medical research·2025
Same author

Correction to "Propensity weighting plus adjustment in proportional hazards model is not doubly robust," by Erin E. Gabriel, Michael C. Sachs, Ingeborg Waernbaum, Els Goetghebeur, Paul F. Blanche, Stijn Vansteelandt, Arvid Sjölander, and Thomas Scheike; Volume 80, Issue 3, September 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomtc/ujae069.

Biometrics·2025
Same author

Propensity weighting plus adjustment in proportional hazards model is not doubly robust.

Biometrics·2024
Same author

Inverse probability of treatment weighting with generalized linear outcome models for doubly robust estimation.

Statistics in medicine·2023

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 24, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation.

Ingeborg Waernbaum1

  • 1Department of Statistics, Umeå University, S-90187, Umeå, Sweden. ingeborg.waernbaum@stat.umu.se

Statistics in Medicine
|February 24, 2012
PubMed
Summary

This study compares matching and doubly robust estimators for causal inference. Matching estimators demonstrated superior robustness and lower mean squared error in simulations, even with propensity score model misspecification.

More Related Videos

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 24, 2026

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Area of Science:

  • Causal inference
  • Statistical modeling
  • Econometrics

Background:

  • Propensity scores are crucial for reducing bias in observational studies.
  • Matching and doubly robust estimators are common methods for causal effect estimation.
  • Understanding estimator robustness to model misspecification is vital for reliable inference.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the robustness properties of matching and doubly robust estimators.
  • To investigate the impact of propensity score model misspecification on causal effect estimation.
  • To evaluate the finite sample performance of these estimators.

Main Methods:

  • Described robustness properties of matching and subclassification estimators.
  • Analyzed conditions under which propensity score model misspecification yields consistent estimation.
  • Conducted simulations comparing matching, inverse probability weighting, and doubly robust estimators.

Main Results:

  • Matching estimators are robust to misspecification if the incorrect model is a covariate score.
  • In simulations, the matching estimator had a smaller mean squared error than inverse probability weighting and doubly robust estimators.
  • Matching offers robustness advantages when the propensity score model is misspecified.

Conclusions:

  • Matching estimators can be robust to propensity score model misspecification.
  • The matching estimator showed better finite sample performance in the simulated scenarios.
  • Researchers should consider the robustness properties of estimators when choosing a method for causal inference.