Abstract:Background: Longitudinal matching can mitigate confounding in observational, real-world studies of time-dependent treatments. To date, these methods have required iterative, manual re-specifications to achieve covariate balance. We propose a longitudinal extension of genetic matching, a machine learning approach that automates balancing of covariate histories. We examine performance by comparing the proposed extension against baseline propensity score matching and time-dependent propensity score matching. Methods: To evaluate comparative performance, we developed a Monte Carlo simulation framework that reflects a static treatment assigned at multiple time points. Data generation considers a treatment assignment model, a continuous outcome model, and underlying covariates. In simulation, we generated 1,000 datasets, each consisting of 1,000 subjects, and applied: (1) nearest neighbour matching on time-invariant, baseline propensity scores; (2) sequential risk set matching on time-dependent propensity scores; and (3) longitudinal genetic matching on time-dependent covariates. To measure comparative performance, we estimated covariate balance, efficiency, bias, and root mean squared error (RMSE) of treatment effect estimates. In scenario analysis, we varied underlying assumptions for assumed covariate distributions, correlations, treatment assignment models, and outcome models. Results: In all scenarios, baseline propensity score matching resulted in biased effect estimation in the presence of time-dependent confounding, with mean bias ranging from 29.7% to 37.2%. In contrast, time-dependent propensity score matching and longitudinal genetic matching achieved stronger covariate balance and yielded less biased estimation, with mean bias ranging from 0.7% to 13.7%. Across scenarios, longitudinal genetic matching achieved similar or better performance than time-dependent propensity score matching without requiring manual re-specifications or normality of covariates. Conclusions: While the most appropriate longitudinal method will depend on research questions and underlying data patterns, our study can help guide these decisions. Simulation results demonstrate the validity of our longitudinal genetic matching approach for supporting future real-world assessments of treatments accessible at multiple time points.

Doubly robust matching estimators for high dimensional confounding adjustment

Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects

Causal effect estimation in survival analysis with high dimensional confounders

Building Representative Matched Samples With Multi-Valued Treatments in Large Observational Studies

Differentiated Matching for Individual and Average Treatment Effect Estimation

Doubly Robust Proximal Causal Inference under Confounded Outcome-Dependent Sampling

Combining Propensity Score Matching with Additional Adjustments for Prognostic Covariates

Matching Estimators for Causal Effects of Multiple Treatments

Estimating Treatment Effect under Additive Hazards Models with High-dimensional Covariates

Dynamic treatment effects: high-dimensional inference under model misspecification

Propensity Score Augmentation in Matching-based Estimation of Causal Effects

Doubly Robust Inference in Causal Latent Factor Models

Doubly robust estimation of average treatment effect revisited

Genetic matching for time-dependent treatments: a longitudinal extension and simulation study

Robust weights that optimally balance confounders for estimating marginal hazard ratios

Efficiency-improved doubly robust estimation with non-confounding predictive covariates

Multiply robust estimation of the average treatment effect with missing outcomes

A New Covariate Selection Strategy for High Dimensional Data in Causal Effect Estimation with Multivariate Treatments

Doubly robust treatment effect estimation with missing attributes

Robust Estimation of Causal Effects via High-Dimensional Covariate Balancing Propensity Score

Robust Estimation of Causal Effects Via a High-Dimensional Covariate Balancing Propensity Score