4.6 Review

Propensity score estimation: neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 8, 页码 826-833

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.020

关键词

Propensity scores; Classification and regression trees (CART); Recursive partitioning algorithms; Neural networks; Logistic regression; Review

资金

  1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Center for AIDS Research (CFAR)
  2. NIH [P30 AI50410]
  3. UNC-GlaxoSmithKline Center for Excellence in Pharmacoepidemiology and Public Health
  4. UNC School of Public Health
  5. NIH/NIAID [5 T32 AI 07001-31]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Propensity scores for the analysis of observational data are typically estimated using logistic regression. Our objective in this review was to assess machine learning alternatives to logistic regression, which may accomplish the same goals but with fewer assumptions or greater accuracy. Study Design and Setting: We identified alternative methods for propensity score estimation and/or classification from the public health, biostatistics, discrete mathematics, and computer science literature, and evaluated these algorithms for applicability to the problem of propensity score estimation, potential advantages over logistic regression, and ease of use. Results: We identified four techniques as alternatives to logistic regression: neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (classification and regression trees [CART]), and meta-classifiers (in particular, boosting). Conclusion: Although the assumptions of logistic regression are well understood, those assumptions are frequently ignored. All four alternatives have advantages and disadvantages compared with logistic regression. Boosting. (meta-classifiers) and, to a lesser extent, decision trees (particularly CART), appear to be most promising for use in the context of propensity score analysis, but extensive simulation studies are needed to establish their utility in practice. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据