Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 23, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Dimension reduction and shrinkage methods for high dimensional disease risk scores in historical data
Hiraku Kumamaru1, Sebastian Schneeweiss2, Robert J Glynn2
1Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street (Suite 3030), Boston, MA 02120 USA ; Department of Healthcare Quality Assessment, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8654 Japan.
Background:
Multivariable confounder adjustment in comparative studies of newly marketed drugs can be limited by small numbers of exposed patients and even fewer outcomes. Disease risk scores (DRSs) developed in historical comparator drug users before the new drug entered the market may improve adjustment. However, in a high dimensional data setting, empirical selection of hundreds of potential confounders and modeling of DRS even in the historical cohort can lead to over-fitting and reduced predictive performance in the study cohort. We propose the use of combinations of dimension reduction and shrinkage methods to overcome this problem, and compared the performances of these modeling strategies for implementing high dimensional (hd) DRSs from historical data in two empirical study examples of newly marketed drugs versus comparator drugs after the new drugs' market entry-dabigatran versus warfarin for the outcome of major hemorrhagic events and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (coxibs) versus nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) for gastrointestinal bleeds.
Results:
Historical hdDRSs that included predefined and empirical outcome predictors with dimension reduction (principal component analysis; PCA) and shrinkage (lasso and ridge regression) approaches had higher c-statistics (0.66 for the PCA model, 0.64 for the PCA + ridge and 0.65 for the PCA + lasso models in the warfarin users) than an unreduced model (c-statistic, 0.54) in the dabigatran example. The odds ratio (OR) from PCA + lasso hdDRS-stratification [OR, 0.64; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.90] was closer to the benchmark estimate (0.93) from a randomized trial than the model without empirical predictors (OR, 0.58; 95 % CI 0.41-0.81). In the coxibs example, c-statistics of the hdDRSs in the nsNSAID initiators were 0.66 for the PCA model, 0.67 for the PCA + ridge model, and 0.67 for the PCA + lasso model; these were higher than for the unreduced model (c-statistic, 0.45), and comparable to the demographics + risk score model (c-statistic, 0.67).
Conclusions:
hdDRSs using historical data with dimension reduction and shrinkage was feasible, and improved confounding adjustment in two studies of newly marketed medications.
Related Concept Videos
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Relative Risk
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

