arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1704.01538

Doubly Robust Inference for Targeted Minimum Loss Based Estimation in Randomized Trials with Missing Outcome Data

Iván Díaz·Mark J. van der Laan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Missing outcome data is one of the principal threats to the validity of treatment effect estimates from randomized trials. The outcome distributions of participants with missing and observed data are often different, which increases the risk of bias. Causal inference methods may aid in reducing the bias and improving efficiency by incorporating baseline variables into the analysis. In particular, doubly robust estimators incorporate estimates of two nuisance parameters: the outcome regression and the missingness mechanism, to adjust for differences in the observed and unobserved groups that can be explained by observed covariates. Such nuisance parameters are traditionally estimated using parametric models, which generally preclude consistent estimation, particularly in moderate to high dimensions. Recent research on missing data has focused on data-adaptive estimation of the nuisance parameters in order to achieve consistency, but the large sample properties of such estimators are poorly understood. In this article we discuss a doubly robust estimator that is consistent and asymptotically normal (CAN) under data-adaptive consistent estimation of the outcome regression or the missingness mechanism. We provide a formula for an asymptotically valid confidence interval under minimal assumptions. We show that our proposed estimator has smaller finite-sample bias compared to standard doubly robust estimators. We present a simulation study demonstrating the enhanced performance of our estimators in terms of bias, efficiency, and coverage of the confidence intervals. We present the results of an illustrative example: a randomized, double-blind phase II/III trial of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected persons, and provide R code implementing our proposed estimators.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Iván Díaz, Mark J. van der Laan. 2017-04-05. Doubly Robust Inference for Targeted Minimum Loss Based Estimation in Randomized Trials with Missing Outcome Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01538

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗