Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 17, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Deep Learning-based Propensity Scores for Confounding Control in Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Large-scale,
Janick Weberpals1, Tim Becker2, Jessica Davies3
1From the Data Science, Pharmaceutical Research and Early Development Informatics (pREDi), Roche Innovation Center Munich (RICM), Penzberg, Germany.
Background:
Due to the non-randomized nature of real-world data, prognostic factors need to be balanced, which is often done by propensity scores (PSs). This study aimed to investigate whether autoencoders, which are unsupervised deep learning architectures, might be leveraged to compute PS.
Methods:
We selected patient-level data of 128,368 first-line treated cancer patients from the Flatiron Health EHR-derived de-identified database. We trained an autoencoder architecture to learn a lower-dimensional patient representation, which we used to compute PS. To compare the performance of an autoencoder-based PS with established methods, we performed a simulation study. We assessed the balancing and adjustment performance using standardized mean differences, root mean square errors (RMSE), percent bias, and confidence interval coverage. To illustrate the application of the autoencoder-based PS, we emulated the PRONOUNCE trial by applying the trial's protocol elements within an observational database setting, comparing two chemotherapy regimens.
Results:
All methods but the manual variable selection approach led to well-balanced cohorts with average standardized mean differences <0.1. LASSO yielded on average the lowest deviation of resulting estimates (RMSE 0.0205) followed by the autoencoder approach (RMSE 0.0248). Altering the hyperparameter setup in sensitivity analysis, the autoencoder approach led to similar results as LASSO (RMSE 0.0203 and 0.0205, respectively). In the case study, all methods provided a similar conclusion with point estimates clustered around the null (e.g., HRautoencoder 1.01 [95% confidence interval = 0.80, 1.27] vs. HRPRONOUNCE 1.07 [0.83, 1.36]).
Conclusions:
Autoencoder-based PS computation was a feasible approach to control for confounding but did not perform better than some established approaches like LASSO.
Related Concept Videos
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
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,...
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

