Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 11, 2026

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
Published on: October 23, 2020
Estimation of conditional and marginal odds ratios using the prognostic score
David Hajage1,2,3,4, Yann De Rycke1,2,3,4, Guillaume Chauvet5,6
1APHP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Département de Biostatistiques, Santé publique et Information médicale, Paris, F-75013, France.
The prognostic score (PGS) framework offers an alternative to propensity score (PS) methods for estimating treatment effects. New PGS methods effectively estimate conditional and marginal effects, outperforming PS methods in certain scenarios.
Area of Science:
- Epidemiology
- Biostatistics
- Statistical modeling
Background:
- The prognostic score (PGS) is analogous to the propensity score (PS), primarily used for estimating marginal treatment effects.
- Previous evaluations of PGS methods focused on collapsible situations where conditional and marginal effects are equivalent.
- Applied researchers need clarity on the specific treatment effects estimated by different PGS methods for robust application.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate existing and introduce novel PGS-based methods for estimating conditional treatment effects (CTE) and marginal average treatment effects (ATE/ATT).
- To compare the performance of PGS methods against PS-based methods and multivariate regression, particularly using the non-collapsible odds ratio.
- To provide guidance on selecting appropriate PGS methods based on the desired treatment effect and exposure prevalence.
Main Methods:
- Monte Carlo simulations were employed to assess the performance of various PGS-based methods.
- The study compared existing and newly proposed PGS methods with traditional PS-based techniques and multivariate regression.
- Performance was evaluated for estimating conditional treatment effect (CTE), average treatment effect (ATE), and average treatment effect on the treated (ATT).
Main Results:
- Existing PGS methods failed to estimate ATE and performed poorly with high exposure prevalence.
- New PGS methods demonstrated better performance for marginal effect estimation in low-prevalence scenarios, with coverages closer to nominal values.
- For CTE estimation, new PGS methods performed comparably to standard multivariate regression analysis.
Conclusions:
- The proposed PGS-based methods offer a viable alternative to PS methods for estimating specific treatment effects.
- New PGS methods show promise for estimating marginal effects, especially when exposure is infrequent.
- PGS methods, particularly the new ones, provide reliable estimation of conditional treatment effects, similar to traditional regression techniques.
Related Concept Videos
Odds Ratio
Relative Risk
The Mantel-Cox Log-Rank Test
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Testing a Claim about Population Proportion
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...
z Scores and Area Under the Curve

