Evidence mapPaperPMID 35848098Full record

Observational studyStatistics in medicine2022

A calibration approach to transportability and data-fusion with observational data.

Kevin P Josey, Fan Yang, Debashis Ghosh, Sridharan Raghavan

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Federated Adaptive Causal Estimation (FACE) of Target Treatment Effects.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Generalizability of Randomized Clinical Trial Outcomes for Diabetes Control Resulting From Bariatric Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Causal isotonic calibration for heterogeneous treatment effects.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2023
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin P JoseyDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2490-6272
Fan YangDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Debashis GhoshDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6618-1316
Sridharan RaghavanRocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0643-4873
Colorado School of Public Health · USHarvard University · USUniversity of Colorado Hospital · US

Funding

GRADUATE TRAINING IN BIOSTATISTICST32ES007142 · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · 1985 to 2025
$3.0M
CSRD VA IK2 CX001907NIEHS NIH HHS 5T32ES007142NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007142VA IK2-CX001907-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two important considerations in clinical research studies are proper evaluations of internal and external validity. While randomized clinical trials can overcome several threats to internal validity, they may be prone to poor external validity. Conversely, large prospective observational studies sampled from a broadly generalizable population may be externally valid, yet susceptible to threats to internal validity, particularly confounding. Thus, methods that address confounding and enhance transportability of study results across populations are essential for internally and externally valid causal inference, respectively. These issues persist for another problem closely related to transportability known as data-fusion. We develop a calibration method to generate balancing weights that address confounding and sampling bias, thereby enabling valid estimation of the target population average treatment effect. We compare the calibration approach to two additional doubly robust methods that estimate the effect of an intervention on an outcome within a second, possibly unrelated target population. The proposed methodologies can be extended to resolve data-fusion problems that seek to evaluate the effects of an intervention using data from two related studies sampled from different populations. A simulation study is conducted to demonstrate the advantages and similarities of the different techniques. We also test the performance of the calibration approach in a motivating real data example comparing whether the effect of biguanides vs sulfonylureas-the two most common oral diabetes medication classes for initial treatment-on all-cause mortality described in a historical cohort applies to a contemporary cohort of US Veterans with diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusBiguanidesCalibrationCausalityHumansSelection BiasBiguanidescausal inferencecovariate balancedata-fusiontransportabilitytype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID35848098
PMCPMC10201931
OpenAlexW4285729176

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.