Abstract:Abstract Background: Propensity score weighting methods are frequently used in observational studies to estimate causal effects. However, researchers usually evaluate their performance only in homogeneous populations. When treatment effects are heterogeneous, it is unclear about the ability of commonly used weighting methods in estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) for the whole population. Methods: Two categories of propensity score weighting approaches are discussed to estimate the ATE for the whole population with heterogeneity: one in which the target of inference is the whole population, including Stabilized inverse probability weighting (SIPW), Empirical likelihood weighting (ELW), Covariate balancing propensity score weighting (CBPS); and the other whose target of inference is the specific population, including Inverse probability weighting with trimming (IPWT), Overlap weighting (OW). To assess the performance of these methods, a simulation study was conducted in terms of bias and root mean square error (RMSE), under six heterogeneity scenarios and three degrees of overlap in the propensity score distributions. Results: According to simulation results, approaches that target the specific population have a substantial bias that rises quickly with increasing heterogeneity. In contrast, approaches for the whole population perform well with relatively smaller bias and RMSE, where CBPS outperforms the others in all heterogeneity scenarios and overlap degrees. When methods are applied to Lindner data with heterogeneity, the results of approaches for the whole population are quite different from approaches for the specific population. Conclusions: When the estimand is the ATE for the whole populations with heterogeneity, applying weighting methods that target specific populations (e.g. IPWT, OW) to estimate it would lead to substantial bias. It is recommended to use methods targeting the whole population (e.g. CBPS, ELW) to achieve this goal.

Energy balancing of covariate distributions

The covariate-adjusted residual estimator and its use in both randomized trials and observational settings

Kernel-Distance-Based Covariate Balancing

Optimal transport weights for causal inference

Entropy Balancing is Doubly Robust

Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments

Weighted Euclidean balancing for a matrix exposure in estimating causal effect

Mahalanobis balancing: A multivariate perspective on approximate covariate balancing

Efficient Covariate Balancing for the Local Average Treatment Effect

Large Sample Properties of Entropy Balancing Estimators of Average Causal Effects

Optimization‐Based Stable Balancing Weights Versus Propensity Score Weighting for Samples With High Covariate Imbalance

Measuring covariate balance in weighted propensity score analyses by the weighted z-difference

Covariate balancing with measurement error

Balance Diagnostics after Propensity Score Matching.

Using Balancing Weights to Target the Treatment Effect on the Treated when Overlap is Poor

Comparison of two propensity score-based methods for balancing covariates: the overlap weighting and fine stratification methods in real-world claims data

Survey calibration for causal inference: a simple method to balance covariate distributions

Assessment of the E-value in the presence of bias amplification: a simulation study

End-to-End Balancing for Causal Continuous Treatment-Effect Estimation

Comparing methods for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data from health care databases

Evaluating propensity score weighting methods in heterogeneous population: a comparative study