Literature DB >> 19122793

Causal effect models for realistic individualized treatment and intention to treat rules.

Mark J van der Laan1, Maya L Petersen.   

Abstract

Marginal structural models (MSM) are an important class of models in causal inference. Given a longitudinal data structure observed on a sample of n independent and identically distributed experimental units, MSM model the counterfactual outcome distribution corresponding with a static treatment intervention, conditional on user-supplied baseline covariates. Identification of a static treatment regimen-specific outcome distribution based on observational data requires, beyond the standard sequential randomization assumption, the assumption that each experimental unit has positive probability of following the static treatment regimen. The latter assumption is called the experimental treatment assignment (ETA) assumption, and is parameter-specific. In many studies the ETA is violated because some of the static treatment interventions to be compared cannot be followed by all experimental units, due either to baseline characteristics or to the occurrence of certain events over time. For example, the development of adverse effects or contraindications can force a subject to stop an assigned treatment regimen.In this article we propose causal effect models for a user-supplied set of realistic individualized treatment rules. Realistic individualized treatment rules are defined as treatment rules which always map into the set of possible treatment options. Thus, causal effect models for realistic treatment rules do not rely on the ETA assumption and are fully identifiable from the data. Further, these models can be chosen to generalize marginal structural models for static treatment interventions. The estimating function methodology of Robins and Rotnitzky (1992) (analogue to its application in Murphy, et. al. (2001) for a single treatment rule) provides us with the corresponding locally efficient double robust inverse probability of treatment weighted estimator.In addition, we define causal effect models for "intention-to-treat" regimens. The proposed intention-to-treat interventions enforce a static intervention until the time point at which the next treatment does not belong to the set of possible treatment options, at which point the intervention is stopped. We provide locally efficient estimators of such intention-to-treat causal effects.

Keywords:  causal effect; causal inference; counterfactual; double robust estimating function; dynamic treatment regimen; estimating function; individualized stopped treatment regimen; individualized treatment rule; inverse probability of treatment weighted estimating functions; locally efficient estimation; static treatment intervention

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 19122793      PMCID: PMC2613338          DOI: 10.2202/1557-4679.1022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Biostat        ISSN: 1557-4679            Impact factor:   0.968


  2 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; Emilie Lanoy; Dominique Costagliola; James M Robins
Journal:  Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.080

2.  Marginal Mean Models for Dynamic Regimes.

Authors:  S A Murphy; M J van der Laan; J M Robins
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 5.033

  2 in total
  53 in total

1.  When to start treatment? A systematic approach to the comparison of dynamic regimes using observational data.

Authors:  Lauren E Cain; James M Robins; Emilie Lanoy; Roger Logan; Dominique Costagliola; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  Collaborative double robust targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan; Susan Gruber
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 0.968

3.  Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption.

Authors:  Maya L Petersen; Kristin E Porter; Susan Gruber; Yue Wang; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 4.  The Healthy Worker Survivor Effect: Target Parameters and Target Populations.

Authors:  Daniel M Brown; Sally Picciotto; Sadie Costello; Andreas M Neophytou; Monika A Izano; Jacqueline M Ferguson; Ellen A Eisen
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2017-09

5.  Statistical methods for analyzing sequentially randomized trials.

Authors:  Oliver Bembom; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  A practical illustration of the importance of realistic individualized treatment rules in causal inference.

Authors:  Oliver Bembom; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Electron J Stat       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.125

7.  Statistical learning of origin-specific statically optimal individualized treatment rules.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan; Maya L Petersen
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 0.968

8.  Targeted maximum likelihood based causal inference: Part II.

Authors:  Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 0.968

9.  Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Dynamic and Static Longitudinal Marginal Structural Working Models.

Authors:  Maya Petersen; Joshua Schwab; Susan Gruber; Nello Blaser; Michael Schomaker; Mark van der Laan
Journal:  J Causal Inference       Date:  2014-06-18

10.  Causal inference in epidemiological studies with strong confounding.

Authors:  Kelly L Moore; Romain Neugebauer; Mark J van der Laan; Ira B Tager
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.