» Articles » PMID: 27382153

Lasso Adjustments of Treatment Effect Estimates in Randomized Experiments

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2016 Jul 7
PMID 27382153
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We provide a principled way for investigators to analyze randomized experiments when the number of covariates is large. Investigators often use linear multivariate regression to analyze randomized experiments instead of simply reporting the difference of means between treatment and control groups. Their aim is to reduce the variance of the estimated treatment effect by adjusting for covariates. If there are a large number of covariates relative to the number of observations, regression may perform poorly because of overfitting. In such cases, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) may be helpful. We study the resulting Lasso-based treatment effect estimator under the Neyman-Rubin model of randomized experiments. We present theoretical conditions that guarantee that the estimator is more efficient than the simple difference-of-means estimator, and we provide a conservative estimator of the asymptotic variance, which can yield tighter confidence intervals than the difference-of-means estimator. Simulation and data examples show that Lasso-based adjustment can be advantageous even when the number of covariates is less than the number of observations. Specifically, a variant using Lasso for selection and ordinary least squares (OLS) for estimation performs particularly well, and it chooses a smoothing parameter based on combined performance of Lasso and OLS.

Citing Articles

PregMedNet: Multifaceted Maternal Medication Impacts on Neonatal Complications.

Kim Y, Maric I, Kashiwagi C, Han L, Chung P, Reiss J medRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39990567 PMC: 11844599. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.13.25322242.


Political practitioners poorly predict which messages persuade the public.

Broockman D, Kalla J, Caballero C, Easton M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(45):e2400076121.

PMID: 39467135 PMC: 11551421. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2400076121.


When does adjusting covariate under randomization help? A comparative study on current practices.

Gao Y, Liu Y, Matsouaka R BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024; 24(1):250.

PMID: 39462370 PMC: 11514882. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02375-3.


Vasculogenic mimicry-related gene prognostic index for predicting prognosis, immune microenvironment in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Ou J, Yin H, Shu F, Wu Z, Liu S, Ye J Heliyon. 2024; 10(16):e36235.

PMID: 39247316 PMC: 11380016. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36235.


Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning for mortality prediction in patients with sepsis.

He B, Qiu Z Front Artif Intell. 2024; 7:1348907.

PMID: 39040922 PMC: 11262051. DOI: 10.3389/frai.2024.1348907.


References
1.
Permutt T . Testing for imbalance of covariates in controlled experiments. Stat Med. 1990; 9(12):1455-62. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780091209. View

2.
Rosenblum M, Liu H, Yen E . Optimal Tests of Treatment Effects for the Overall Population and Two Subpopulations in Randomized Trials, using Sparse Linear Programming. J Am Stat Assoc. 2015; 109(507):1216-1228. PMC: 4283951. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2013.879063. View

3.
Dalen J . The pulmonary artery catheter-friend, foe, or accomplice?. JAMA. 2001; 286(3):348-50. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.3.348. View

4.
Connors Jr A, Speroff T, Dawson N, Thomas C, Harrell Jr F, Wagner D . The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA. 1996; 276(11):889-97. DOI: 10.1001/jama.276.11.889. View

5.
Harvey S, Harrison D, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones C, Elbourne D . Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366(9484):472-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67061-4. View