Evidence mapPaperPMID 40896453Full record

ArticleUncertainty in artificial intelligence : proceedings of the ... conference. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence2024

Calibrated and Conformal Propensity Scores for Causal Effect Estimation.

Shachi Deshpande, Volodymyr Kuleshov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Uncertainty in artificial intelligence : proceedings of the ... conference. Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Shachi DeshpandeDept of Computer Science, Cornell University and Cornell Tech, New York, NY, USA.
Volodymyr KuleshovDept of Computer Science, Cornell University and Cornell Tech, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Next-Generation Algorithms in Statistical Genetics Based on Modern Machine LearningR35GM151243 · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · 2025 to 2025
$410k
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM151243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Propensity scores are commonly used to estimate treatment effects from observational data. We argue that the probabilistic output of a learned propensity score model should be calibrated-i.e., a predictive treatment probability of 90% should correspond to 90% individuals being assigned the treatment group-and we propose simple recalibration techniques to ensure this property. We prove that calibration is a necessary condition for unbiased treatment effect estimation when using popular inverse propensity weighted and doubly robust estimators. We derive error bounds on causal effect estimates that directly relate to the quality of uncertainties provided by the probabilistic propensity score model and show that calibration strictly improves this error bound while also avoiding extreme propensity weights. We demonstrate improved causal effect estimation with calibrated propensity scores in several tasks including high-dimensional image covariates and genome-wide association studies (GWASs). Calibrated propensity scores improve the speed of GWAS analysis by more than two-fold by enabling the use of simpler models that are faster to train.

Identifiers

PMID40896453
PMCPMC12395260

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.