arXiv · 2609.24053
When bad adjustment looks good: what goes wrong in Plasmode 0.1.0 simulations
Abstract
Comparisons of confounding-control methods are informative only when simulated data contain the treatment-covariate relationship those methods address. We assessed whether Plasmode 0.1.0 preserves that relationship, uses the returned exposure to generate outcomes, and reports the effect implied by its generating model. We inspected the source and ran the generator under identical seeds with source rows as supplied, sorted by observed exposure, or using an alignment correction. We ran 200 null-effect replicates per strategy in a synthetic cohort and the SUPPORT/Right Heart Catheterisation cohort. A sampled subject usually received another subject's exposure probability. In the synthetic cohort, source-model AUC was 0.503 before and 0.841 after alignment. Crude risk-difference bias moved from +0.0051 to +0.3037. Other orders preserved or reversed the association. After alignment, deliberately misspecified estimators retained risk-difference biases of 0.10-0.11. Correctly specified estimators were nearly unbiased. With the unmodified generator, all five appeared similarly unbiased. At an injected odds ratio of 2, the conditional log odds ratio appeared on the observed exposure (+0.696; target 0.693), not the returned exposure (+0.017). Misalignment can weaken, preserve, or reverse designed confounding and thereby distort method comparisons. Alignment correction does not repair outcome-exposure decoupling, disagreement between the reported and generating effects, or marginal miscalibration.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M. Ehsan Karim. 2026-09-21. When bad adjustment looks good: what goes wrong in Plasmode 0.1.0 simulations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24053
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.