Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A New Targeted-Federated Learning Framework for Estimating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects: A Robust Framework with Applications in Aging Cohorts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A federated estimator can recover heterogeneous treatment effects for a target population without sharing patient-level data, staying consistent under either of two model specifications.

desk verdict Useful federated HTE proposal with a real gap: Eq. (4) as printed doesn't support the claimed double robustness, so the central theorem needs either corrected equations or a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.19243 v2 pith:RTYLVGCJ submitted 2025-10-22 stat.ME

Rong Zhao , Jason Falvey , Xu Shi , Vernon M. Chinchilli , Chixiang Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME
keywords federatedlearningheterogeneityoftreatmenteffectsdoublyrobustestimationdensityratiomodelpropensityscorebootstrapselectioncovariateshiftcategoricaloutcomes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) can be estimated in a federated setting—where patient-level data never leave their source institutions—with one round of communication and without bias from covariate distribution shifts. The authors define HTE through a projection-based working structural model, then construct an estimator that is consistent if either the outcome regressions are correct at every site, or the propensity scores and density-ratio models are correct at every site: a doubly robust property. A bootstrap-based selection step is added to detect and exclude non-transportable data sources, preventing negative transfer. The method is demonstrated in simulations and on Medicare hip-fracture cohorts, where it recovers known effect modification (e.g., sex) with narrower intervals than using the target site alone. A sympathetic reader would care because it makes multi-site precision-medicine analyses feasible under privacy constraints. The paper also candidly flags that the selection step's validity depends on a consistent target-only estimator (Section 2.4) and that formal theory for the bootstrap selector is not developed (Section 5).

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three interacting pieces: (1) a working structural model l{E(Y(a)|X~,M=1)} = η(X~,a)^T β whose coefficients are defined as a projection via moment condition (2), giving a target-population-specific, interpretable HTE estimand; (2) a density-tilting term τ_m(X;α_m)=exp(α_m^T r(X)) that reweights each source's covariate distribution to match the target's, estimated by moment matching in Equation (5); and (3) the doubly robust estimating equation (4) that combines tilted source-specific score contributions with the target's own augmented score. A bootstrap selection procedure around this estimator screens out non-transportable sources by comparing each source's estima

What would settle it

Simulate K=20 sites satisfying Assumptions 1–8 with shift in covariate distributions, misspecify all outcome regressions, specify all propensity scores and the density-ratio model correctly, and check that the estimator's bias decreases with sample size; then misspecify the density-ratio model while keeping propensity scores correct and confirm bias appears. This isolates the second robustness branch and tests whether the density-ratio calibration is doing the claimed work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: the targeted-federated estimator obtained by solving Equation (4) is consistent for the projection parameter that best approximates the conditional treatment effect in the target population, provided either every site's outcome regression is correctly specified, or every site's propensity score and every source's density-ratio model is correctly specified. This makes the estimator doubly robust in a federated setting where covariate distributions differ across sites, and it is achieved with a single round of communication in which no individual-level data is exchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The treatment effect conditional on the measured covariates must be identical across all data sources (Assumption 8); the paper's own selection procedure also assumes the target-only estimate is consistent, a point it flags in Section 2.4.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, multi-site HTE studies can pool evidence across institutions without sharing patient-level data or requiring more than one round of communication.
  • The projection estimand gives interpretable effect-modification parameters (e.g., log-odds ratios for binary outcomes) even when the true conditional effect is not exactly linear in the working model.
  • The bootstrap selection step provides a practical guard against negative transfer; in the Medicare application it identified all 2010–2016 sources as transportable to the 2017 target while improving precision over target-only analysis.
  • The double robustness means a site need only get one branch right (outcome regression, or propensity plus density ratio) for its data to contribute without bias.
  • Communication cost is one round: a target summary (covariate means) goes out, each source returns a scalar or vector score term, and the target solves the joined estimating equation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The projection estimand is working-model-dependent: if the chosen η(X~,a) is far from the truth, the target parameter itself changes. A natural extension is to let the federated protocol compare multiple working models or use a more flexible basis for η.
  • The bootstrap selection procedure can only catch non-transportability that shifts the federated estimate away from a consistent target-only estimate; if the target site itself is confounded or its model is misspecified, the screen may retain biased sources. A sensitivity analysis that assumes a range of target-only biases would be a direct extension.
  • The exponential tilting form of the density ratio is a parametric restriction; when it is misspecified, the second robustness branch loses its guarantee. A diagnostic based on a richer moment set (e.g., second moments) would make the shift calibration testable in practice.
  • The single-round design could be extended to adaptive re-weighting across rounds if an initial pass reveals some sources near the decision boundary, trading extra communication for more precise selection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a targeted-federated learning framework for estimating heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTEs) in a prespecified target population. The target estimand is defined through a working structural model whose parameters solve a projection moment condition (Eq. 2). The authors develop a target-only doubly robust estimator (Eq. 3) and a federated estimator (Eq. 4) that combines target and external-site contributions, using density-ratio weighting to adjust for covariate shift and a bootstrap-based procedure to select transportable sources. The paper claims double robustness for the federated estimator (Theorem 2), reports variance reductions in simulations, and applies the method to Medicare hip-fracture data.

Significance. If the theoretical claims are correct, this is a potentially useful contribution: it provides a projection-based estimand for HTEs that accommodates binary/count outcomes, operates under federated privacy constraints with one round of communication, and includes a practical source-selection procedure. The target-only estimator is standard and the density-ratio approach is sensible. The simulation studies and real-data application are extensive and the proposal addresses a genuine gap in the federated causal inference literature. However, the central theorem's proof is deferred to unavailable supplementary material and, more importantly, the displayed estimating equation appears inconsistent with the stated double-robustness property, so the main claims are not currently verifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.2, Eq. (4)] The external-site estimating functions P_m for m∈S omit the centering term (g_m − l^{-1}{η^T β_F}) that is present for the target site in Q_1. Consequently, E[P_m] at the true projection parameter equals E_{f_1}[η(Ỹ,a){E[Y(a)|X] − g_m(a,X)}], which is nonzero under branch (ii) of Theorem 2 (PS and density-ratio correct, OR misspecified). Only branch (i) — all OR models correct — is supported by the printed equation. The proof is deferred to Supplementary Section 1.5, which is not included, so the cancellation central to double robustness cannot be checked. The equations must be corrected to include external centering (and appropriate weights), or Theorem 2 and the associated efficiency claims are unsupported.
  2. [§3, Table 1] Under Setting I (all OR and PS correct), Eq. (4) implies the external P_m are zero-mean and do not depend on β_F. Adding independent zero-mean terms cannot produce the substantial MCSD reductions relative to Target-only reported in Table 1 (e.g., interaction MCSD 64.9 → 50.5 at n1=100). Under Setting III (OR misspecified, PS/DR correct), the printed equation predicts a bias equal to Σ_{m∈S} w_m E_{f_1}[η{Y(a)−g_m^a(X)}] at the federated root, yet the reported Fed-SS bias for A_i*X_1i is 0.9 (n1=100). These discrepancies indicate that the implemented estimator differs from the printed Eq. (4), so the simulation results cannot validate the method as presented.
  3. [§2.4] The bootstrap selection procedure constructs β_m^{(b)} by setting w_m=1 in Eq. (4). For external sites this is not, in general, a consistent estimating equation for β_0 even under transportability unless the site's OR is correct (see the Eq. (4) comment). The paper acknowledges that the procedure's validity relies on the consistency of the target-only estimator and lists a formal theoretical assessment as future work, but then presents Fed-BS as a validated safeguard against negative transfer. Given the missing theory and the dependence on the problematic estimating equation, the selection procedure should be presented as a heuristic; its simulation performance cannot be interpreted as support without a proof or a corrected equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The notation is confusing: K is used both as the set of source indices and as the number of external sources (e.g., 'K+1 sources' vs. 'm∈K'). Consider using a script letter for the set and k for the count.
  2. [§2.3.2, Eq. (4)] The weights w_m are defined only after the estimating equation is displayed. State the normalization (Σ w_m = 1, w_m ≥ 0) before the equation, and note that the target-only case w_1=1 is one of many possible choices.
  3. [§2.3.3, Eq. (5)] The relationship between r(X) and ṟ(X) is not clearly stated. If they are the same (e.g., r(X)=X), say so; otherwise explain what distinguishes them. The description in Section 2.4 suggests only covariate means are shared, so clarify whether ṟ is a subvector.
  4. [§3, Table 2] The definition of non-transportable sources is asymmetric: half the sources have misspecified PS and OR models, so it is unclear whether the Fed-BS improvement comes from detecting OR misspecification or PS misspecification. A cleaner experiment would vary one of the two at a time.
  5. [§4] In the real-data application, all source datasets were identified as transportable, so the bootstrap selection procedure's utility in that example is not demonstrated. Consider a sensitivity analysis where some sources are excluded or artificially made non-transportable to illustrate the procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the target estimand is defined independently, the estimating equations are standard DR M-estimators, and the bootstrap selection's reliance on the target-only estimator is explicitly stated as a limitation rather than hidden as a derivation.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain: the projection parameter beta_0 is defined self-containedly by the moment condition in Eq. (2), which does not reference the federated estimator. The target-only estimator in Eq. (3) and the federated estimator in Eq. (4) are standard doubly robust M-estimating equations; the theorem conditions (OR correct, or PS plus density-ratio correct) are stated as assumptions, not derived from the conclusion. The proof of Theorem 2 is deferred to the supplement ('We refer readers to Section 1.5 of the Supplementary Material for more details'), which is a completeness/correctness concern but not circularity. The bootstrap selection procedure in Section 2.4 compares source-augmented estimates to the target-only estimate; the paper explicitly states 'The validity of this procedure relies on the consistency of the target-only estimator.' This is a stated sufficient condition and a limitation, not an unacknowledged importation of the target result. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: citations such as [26], [14], [27], and [10] provide external methodological context. I also note a possible technical mismatch in the displayed Eq. (4) (Q_1 is not multiplied by w_1 and external-site centering terms are absent), but that is a correctness issue, not a circularity, and cannot be resolved without the omitted proof. Overall, the central claim is not forced by definition, by fitted inputs, or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard causal identification plus three modeling bets: exponential-tilting density ratios, correct OR or PS specifications, and a target that is itself consistent enough to serve as the reference for source selection.

free parameters (2)
  • source weights w_m = e.g., n_m/N; w_1 for target
    User-chosen weighting scheme in Eq. (4); affects efficiency and the influence of biased external sources, though not consistency when all models are correct.
  • bootstrap selection level and B = 0.95 CI; B not specified
    Hand-chosen threshold for including/excluding a source; no formal theory provided for its operating characteristics.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption SUTVA: no interference and consistency (Assumptions 1-2)
    Required for potential outcomes to be well-defined; standard in causal inference.
  • domain assumption Positivity and ignorability in target and source sites (Assumptions 3-6)
    Needed for identification of potential outcome means from observed data.
  • domain assumption Support condition for covariate distributions across sources (Assumption 7)
    Required for the density-ratio weights to be finite and estimable.
  • domain assumption Mean exchangeability over source allocation (Assumption 8)
    E(Y(a)|X=x)=E(Y(a)|X=x,M=m); load-bearing for external data to be transportable. If false, federated estimates are biased.
  • domain assumption Exponential tilting density-ratio model is correctly specified
    The method assumes f1(X)=fm(X)exp(alpha_m^T r(X)) with user-specified r(X); correctness of the DR property depends on this.
  • domain assumption Correct specification of either all OR models or (all PS and density-ratio models)
    The claimed double robustness requires one of these two scenarios; the displayed equation makes the second scenario questionable for external sites.
  • domain assumption Moment condition (2) uniquely defines the target projection parameter
    The estimand is a projection onto a working structural model; without uniqueness the estimator has no well-defined target.
  • domain assumption Target-only estimator is consistent for the bootstrap selection procedure
    Stated in Section 2.4: the selection rule compares source contributions to the target-only estimate, so any inconsistency propagates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Targeted-Federated Learning Framework for Estimating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects: A Robust Framework with Applications in Aging Cohorts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTYLVGCJ

@misc{pith2026251019243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Targeted-Federated Learning Framework for Estimating Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects: A Robust Framework with Applications in Aging Cohorts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTYLVGCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.19243}
}
read the original abstract

Analyzing data from multiple sources offers valuable opportunities to improve the estimation efficiency of causal estimands. However, this analysis also poses many challenges due to population heterogeneity and data privacy constraints. While several advanced methods for causal inference in federated settings have been developed in recent years, many focus on difference-based averaged causal effects and are not designed to study effect modification. In this study, we introduce a novel targeted-federated learning framework to study the heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTEs) for a targeted population by proposing a projection-based estimand. This HTE framework integrates information from multiple data sources without sharing raw data, while accounting for covariate distribution shifts among sources. Our proposed approach is shown to be doubly robust, conveniently supporting both difference-based estimands for continuous outcomes and odds ratio-based estimands for binary outcomes. Furthermore, we develop a communication-efficient bootstrap-based selection procedure to detect non-transportable data sources, thereby enhancing robust information aggregation without introducing bias. The superior performance of the proposed estimator over existing methods is demonstrated through extensive simulation studies, and the utility of our approach has been shown in a real-world data application using nationwide Medicare-linked data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Flowchart of the proposed targeted-federated framework. (b) Baseline covariate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The estimated logarithm of odds ratios and corresponding 95% bootstrap CIs for covari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The estimated logarithm of odds ratios and corresponding 95% bootstrap CIs for surgical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Novel Tool for Evaluating Effect Modification in Older Adults with ADRD Using Medicare Claims

    stat.ME 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PD-Robust is a triply robust pseudo-outcome estimator for subgroup-specific effects on recovery trajectories among patients who would survive regardless of exposure, and it identifies males under 85 as losing up to 23...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.Biometrics, 61(4):962–973, 2005

    Heejung Bang and James M Robins. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models.Biometrics, 61(4):962–973, 2005

    2005

  2. [2]

    Recovery of function following a hip fracture in geriatric ambulatory persons.Age and Ageing, 34(3):221–226, 2005

    Lauren A Beaupre, C Allyson Jones, L Diane Saunders, David W Johnston, Joan Buck- ingham, and Sumit R Majumdar. Recovery of function following a hip fracture in geriatric ambulatory persons.Age and Ageing, 34(3):221–226, 2005

    2005

  3. [3]

    Federated learning of predictive models from federated electronic health records

    Theodora S Brisimi, Ruidi Chen, Theofanie Mela, Alex Olshevsky, Ioannis Ch Paschalidis, and Wei Shi. Federated learning of predictive models from federated electronic health records. International journal of medical informatics, 112:59–67, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Integrating exter- nal summary information in the presence of prior probability shift: an application to assessing essential hypertension.Biometrics, 80(3):ujae090, 2024

    Chixiang Chen, Peisong Han, Shuo Chen, Michelle Shardell, and Jing Qin. Integrating exter- nal summary information in the presence of prior probability shift: an application to assessing essential hypertension.Biometrics, 80(3):ujae090, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Generic machine learning inference on heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized experiments, with an ap- plication to immunization in india

    Victor Chernozhukov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, and Ivan Fernandez-Val. Generic machine learning inference on heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized experiments, with an ap- plication to immunization in india. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018. 23

    2018

  6. [6]

    Shuai Cui, Dehui Wang, Xuejie Wang, Zehui Li, and Wenlai Guo. The choice of screw internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 15:1–11, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Longitudinal trajectories of functional recovery after hip fracture.PLoS One, 18(3):e0283551, 2023

    Shams Dakhil, Ingvild Saltvedt, J¯ urat˙ eˇSaltyt˙ e Benth, Pernille Thingstad, Leiv Otto Watne, Torgeir Bruun Wyller, Jorunn L Helbostad, Frede Frihagen, Lars Gunnar Johnsen, and Kristin Taraldsen. Longitudinal trajectories of functional recovery after hip fracture.PLoS One, 18(3):e0283551, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Fed- erated learning for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19.Nature medicine, 27(10):1735–1743, 2021

    Ittai Dayan, Holger R Roth, Aoxiao Zhong, Ahmed Harouni, Amilcare Gentili, Anas Z Abidin, Andrew Liu, Anthony Beardsworth Costa, Bradford J Wood, Chien-Sung Tsai, et al. Fed- erated learning for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19.Nature medicine, 27(10):1735–1743, 2021

    2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Heterogeneity-aware and communication-efficient distributed statistical inference.Biometrika, 109(1):67–83, 2022

    Rui Duan, Yang Ning, and Yong Chen. Heterogeneity-aware and communication-efficient distributed statistical inference.Biometrika, 109(1):67–83, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    A fast score test for generalized mixture models.Biometrics, 76(3):811–820, 2020

    Rui Duan, Yang Ning, Shuang Wang, Bruce G Lindsay, Raymond J Carroll, and Yong Chen. A fast score test for generalized mixture models.Biometrics, 76(3):811–820, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Racial and socioeconomic disparities in hip fracture care.JBJS, 98(10):858–865, 2016

    Christopher J Dy, Joseph M Lane, Ting Jung Pan, Michael L Parks, and Stephen Lyman. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in hip fracture care.JBJS, 98(10):858–865, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Jason R Falvey, Chixiang Chen, Abree Johnson, Kathleen A Ryan, Michelle Shardell, Haoyu Ren, Lisa Reider, and Jay Magaziner. Associations of days spent at home before hip fracture with postfracture days at home and 1-year mortality among medicare beneficiaries living with alzh...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Commute: communication-efficient transfer learning for multi-site risk prediction.Journal of biomedical informatics, 137:104243, 2023

    Tian Gu, Phil H Lee, and Rui Duan. Commute: communication-efficient transfer learning for multi-site risk prediction.Journal of biomedical informatics, 137:104243, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Privacy-preserving, communication-efficient, and target-flexible hospital quality measurement.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 18(2):1337–1359, 2024

    Larry Han, Yige Li, Bijan Niknam, and Jos´ e R Zubizarreta. Privacy-preserving, communication-efficient, and target-flexible hospital quality measurement.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 18(2):1337–1359, 2024. 24

    2024

  7. [15]

    A divide-and-conquer solver for kernel support vector machines

    Cho-Jui Hsieh, Si Si, and Inderjit Dhillon. A divide-and-conquer solver for kernel support vector machines. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 566–574. PMLR, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Collaborative inference for treatment effect with distributed data-sharing management in multicenter studies.Statistics in medicine, 43(11):2263–2279, 2024

    Mengtong Hu, Xu Shi, and Peter X-K Song. Collaborative inference for treatment effect with distributed data-sharing management in multicenter studies.Statistics in medicine, 43(11):2263–2279, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects.Electronic Journal of Statistics, 17(2):3008–3049, 2023

    Edward H Kennedy. Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects.Electronic Journal of Statistics, 17(2):3008–3049, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.Bmj, 363, 2018

    David M Kent, Ewout Steyerberg, and David Van Klaveren. Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.Bmj, 363, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 116(10):4156–4165, 2019

    S¨ oren R K¨ unzel, Jasjeet S Sekhon, Peter J Bickel, and Bin Yu. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 116(10):4156–4165, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Generalizing study results: a potential outcomes perspective

    Catherine R Lesko, Ashley L Buchanan, Daniel Westreich, Jessie K Edwards, Michael G Hudgens, and Stephen R Cole. Generalizing study results: a potential outcomes perspective. Epidemiology, 28(4):553–561, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Targeting underrepresented populations in precision medicine: A federated transfer learning approach.The annals of applied statistics, 17(4):2970, 2023

    Sai Li, Tianxi Cai, and Rui Duan. Targeting underrepresented populations in precision medicine: A federated transfer learning approach.The annals of applied statistics, 17(4):2970, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    On a general class of orthogonal learners for the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12687, 2023

    Pawel Morzywolek, Johan Decruyenaere, and Stijn Vansteelandt. On a general class of orthogonal learners for the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12687, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On weighted orthogonal learners for heterogeneous treatment effects, 2024

    Pawel Morzywolek, Johan Decruyenaere, and Stijn Vansteelandt. On weighted orthogonal learners for heterogeneous treatment effects, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Heather L Mutchie, Denise L Orwig, Ann L Gruber-Baldini, Abree Johnson, Jay Magaziner, and Jason R Falvey. Associations of sex, alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, and days 25 alive and at home among older medicare beneficiaries recovering from hip fracture.Journal of t...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects

    Xinkun Nie and Stefan Wager. Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika, 108(2):299–319, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Inferences for case-control and semiparametric two-sample density ratio models

    Jing Qin. Inferences for case-control and semiparametric two-sample density ratio models. Biometrika, 85(3):619–630, 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    Hypothesis testing in a mixture case–control model.Biomet- rics, 67(1):182–193, 2011

    Jing Qin and Kung-Yee Liang. Hypothesis testing in a mixture case–control model.Biomet- rics, 67(1):182–193, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology, 2000

    James M Robins, Miguel Angel Hernan, and Babette Brumback. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology, 2000

    2000

  21. [29]

    Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed.Journal of the American statistical Association, 89(427):846–866, 1994

    James M Robins, Andrea Rotnitzky, and Lue Ping Zhao. Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed.Journal of the American statistical Association, 89(427):846–866, 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions

    Donald B Rubin. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469):322–331, 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    Doubly robust causal modeling to evaluate device implantation.JAMA internal medicine, 184(7):834–835, 2024

    Michelle Shardell, Chixiang Chen, and Rozalina G McCoy. Doubly robust causal modeling to evaluate device implantation.JAMA internal medicine, 184(7):834–835, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Biyi Shen, Haoyu Ren, Michelle Shardell, Jason Falvey, and Chixiang Chen. Analyzing risk factors for post-acute recovery in older adults with alzheimer’s disease and related demen- tia: A new semi-parametric model for large-scale medicare claims.Statistics in Medicine, 43(5):1...

    2024

  25. [33]

    On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments

    Jerzy Splawa-Neyman, Dorota M Dabrowska, and Terrence P Speed. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. essay on principles. section 9.Statistical Science, pages 465–472, 1990

    1990

  26. [34]

    Cambridge university press, 2000

    Aad W Van der Vaart.Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge university press, 2000. 26

    2000

  27. [35]

    Federated estimation of causal effects from observational data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00456, 2021

    Thanh Vinh Vo, Trong Nghia Hoang, Young Lee, and Tze-Yun Leong. Federated estimation of causal effects from observational data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00456, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Distributed inference for linear support vector machine.Journal of machine learning research, 20(113):1–41, 2019

    Xiaozhou Wang, Zhuoyi Yang, Xi Chen, and Weidong Liu. Distributed inference for linear support vector machine.Journal of machine learning research, 20(113):1–41, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    A survey of transfer learning

    Karl Weiss, Taghi M Khoshgoftaar, and DingDing Wang. A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big data, 3:1–40, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Federated causal inference in heterogeneous observational data.Statistics in Medicine, 42(24):4418–4439, 2023

    Ruoxuan Xiong, Allison Koenecke, Michael Powell, Zhu Shen, Joshua T Vogelstein, and Susan Athey. Federated causal inference in heterogeneous observational data.Statistics in Medicine, 42(24):4418–4439, 2023. 27

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.