Brian K Lee

Dr. Brian K Lee


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 December 2009 in Statistics in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BLBrian K Lee
Brian K Lee
JLJustin Lessler
Justin Lessler
ESElizabeth A. Stuart
Elizabeth A. Stuart

1 August 2013 in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ESElizabeth A. Stuart
Elizabeth A. Stuart
BLBrian K Lee
Brian K Lee
FLFinbarr P. Leacy
Finbarr P. Leacy
Examining covariate balance is the prescribed method for determining the degree to which propensity score methods should be successful at reducing bias. This study assessed the performance of various balance measures, including a proposed balance measure based on the prognostic score (similar to a disease risk score), to determine which balance measures best correlate with bias in the treatment effect estimate. The correlations of multiple common balance measures with bias in the treatment effect estimate produced by weighting by the odds, subclassification on the propensity score, and full matching on the propensity score were calculated. Simulated data were used, based on realistic data settings. Settings included both continuous and binary covariates and continuous covariates only. The absolute standardized mean difference (ASMD) in prognostic scores, the mean ASMD (in covariates), and the mean t-statistic all had high correlations with bias in the effect estimate. Overall, prognostic scores displayed the highest correlations with bias of all the balance measures considered. Prognostic score measure performance was generally not affected by model misspecification, and the prognostic score measure performed well under a variety of scenarios. Researchers should consider using prognostic score-based balance measures for assessing the performance of propensity score methods for reducing bias in nonexperimental studies.

31 March 2011 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BLBrian K Lee
Brian K Lee
JLJustin Lessler
Justin Lessler
ESElizabeth A. Stuart
Elizabeth A. Stuart
Propensity score weighting is sensitive to model misspecification and outlying weights that can unduly influence results. The authors investigated whether trimming large weights downward can improve the performance of propensity score weighting and whether the benefits of trimming differ by propensity score estimation method. In a simulation study, the authors examined the performance of weight trimming following logistic regression, classification and regression trees (CART), boosted CART, and random forests to estimate propensity score weights. Results indicate that although misspecified logistic regression propensity score models yield increased bias and standard errors, weight trimming following logistic regression can improve the accuracy and precision of final parameter estimates. In contrast, weight trimming did not improve the performance of boosted CART and random forests. The performance of boosted CART and random forests without weight trimming was similar to the best performance obtainable by weight trimmed logistic regression estimated propensity scores. While trimming may be used to optimize propensity score weights estimated using logistic regression, the optimal level of trimming is difficult to determine. These results indicate that although trimming can improve inferences in some settings, in order to consistently improve the performance of propensity score weighting, analysts should focus on the procedures leading to the generation of weights (i.e., proper specification of the propensity score model) rather than relying on ad-hoc methods such as weight trimming.

1 February 2015 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BLBrian K Lee
Brian K Lee
CMCecilia Magnusson
Cecilia Magnusson
RGRenee M. Gardner
Renee M. Gardner
ÅBÅsa Blomström
Åsa Blomström
CNCraig J. Newschaffer
Craig J. Newschaffer
CDChristina Dalman
Christina Dalman

19 April 2013 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DRDheeraj Rai
Dheeraj Rai
BLBrian K Lee
Brian K Lee
CDChristina Dalman
Christina Dalman
JGJean Golding
Jean Golding
GLGlyn Lewis
Glyn Lewis
CMCecilia Magnusson
Cecilia Magnusson
Objective To study the association between parental depression and maternal antidepressant use during pregnancy with autism spectrum disorders in offspring. Design Population based nested case-control study. Setting Stockholm County, Sweden, 2001-07. Participants 4429 cases of autism spectrum disorder (1828 with and 2601 without intellectual disability) and 43 277 age and sex matched controls in the full sample (1679 cases of autism spectrum disorder and 16 845 controls with data on maternal antidepressant use nested within a cohort (n=589 114) of young people aged 0-17 years. Main outcome measure A diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, with or without intellectual disability. Exposures Parental depression and other characteristics prospectively recorded in administrative registers before the birth of the child. Maternal antidepressant use, recorded at the first antenatal interview, was available for children born from 1995 onwards. Results A history of maternal (adjusted odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.08) but not paternal depression was associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders in offspring. In the subsample with available data on drugs, this association was confined to women reporting antidepressant use during pregnancy (3.34, 1.50 to 7.47, P=0.003), irrespective of whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or non-selective monoamine reuptake inhibitors were reported. All associations were higher in cases of autism without intellectual disability, there being no evidence of an increased risk of autism with intellectual disability. Assuming an unconfounded, causal association, antidepressant use during pregnancy explained 0.6% of the cases of autism spectrum disorder. Conclusions In utero exposure to both SSRIs and non-selective monoamine reuptake inhibitors (tricyclic antidepressants) was associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders, particularly without intellectual disability. Whether this association is causal or reflects the risk of autism with severe depression during pregnancy requires further research. However, assuming causality, antidepressant use during pregnancy is unlikely to have contributed significantly towards the dramatic increase in observed prevalence of autism spectrum disorders as it explained less than 1% of cases.

5 December 2014 in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SISelma Idring
Selma Idring
MLMichael Lundberg
Michael Lundberg
HSHarald Sturm
Harald Sturm
CDChristina Dalman
Christina Dalman
CGClara Gumpert
Clara Gumpert
CMCecilia Magnusson
Cecilia Magnusson