{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02617801047120419, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018848167539267015, 'mean_word_length': 5.2894736842105265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Application and comparison of generalized propensity score matching versus pairwise propensity score matching.

AIM
A comparison of conventional pairwise propensity score matching (PSM) and generalized PSM method was applied to the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for lung cancer.


MATERIALS & METHODS
Deidentified data were analyzed. Covariate balances between compared treatments were assessed before and after PSM. Cox proportional hazards regression compared overall survival after PSM.


RESULTS & CONCLUSION
The generalized PSM analyses were able to retain 61.2% of patients, while the conventional PSM analyses were able to match from 24.1 to 77.1% of patients from each treatment comparison. The generalized PSM achieved statistical significance (p < 0.05) in 8/10 comparisons, whereas conventional pairwise PSM achieved 1/10. The noted differences arose from different matched patient samples and the size of the samples.