Ten Pearls and Pitfalls of Propensity Scores in Critical Care Research: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers
Ten Pearls and Pitfalls of Propensity Scores in Critical Care Research: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/ccm.0000000000003567
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-01
影响因子：
8.8
通讯作者：
Leisman, Daniel E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Leisman, Daniel E.
重症监护医学www. ccmjournal。org 177不准确，如果这样做将含义归因于随机噪声的话。过度拟合长期以来一直是医学文献中的问题（16），并可能导致科学中的不可再现性（17）。因此，观察性研究必须平衡最大化混杂因素调整和最小化过度拟合风险。虽然过拟合不是传统协变量调整的唯一问题，但理解过拟合很重要，因为它是倾向技术可能能够克服的主要限制。
Critical Care Medicine www. ccmjournal. org 177 inaccurate if doing so attributes meaning to random noise. Overfitting has long been problematic in medical literature (16) and likely contributes to irreproducibility in science (17). Therefore, observational studies must balance maximizing confounder adjustment and minimizing overfitting risk. Although hardly the only concern with traditional covariate adjustment, overfitting is important to understand because it is the primary limitation that propensity techniques may be able to overcome.