Literature DB >> 19829187

Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference.

Tyler J VanderWeele1.   

Abstract

Cole and Frangakis (Epidemiology. 2009;20:3-5) introduced notation for the consistency assumption in causal inference. I extend this notation and propose a refinement of the consistency assumption that makes clear that the consistency statement, as ordinarily given, is in fact an assumption and not an axiom or definition. The refinement is also useful in showing that additional assumptions (referred to here as treatment-variation irrelevance assumptions), stronger than those given by Cole and Frangakis, are in fact necessary in articulating the ordinary assumptions of ignorability or exchangeability. The refinement furthermore sheds light on the distinction between intervention and choice in reasoning about causality. A distinction between the range of treatment variations for which potential outcomes can be defined and the range for which treatment comparisons are made is discussed in relation to issues of nonadherence. The use of stochastic counterfactuals can help relax what is effectively being presupposed by the treatment-variation irrelevance assumption and the consistency assumption.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19829187     DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181bd5638

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  110 in total

1.  Principal stratification and attribution prohibition: good ideas taken too far.

Authors:  Marshall Joffe
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  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

3.  Imputation approaches for potential outcomes in causal inference.

Authors:  Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Stephen R Cole; Robert W Platt; Sunni L Mumford; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-07-25       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  Using marginal structural models to estimate the direct effect of adverse childhood social conditions on onset of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke.

Authors:  Arijit Nandi; M Maria Glymour; Ichiro Kawachi; Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.822

5.  Causal inference in occupational epidemiology: accounting for the healthy worker effect by using structural nested models.

Authors:  Ashley I Naimi; David B Richardson; Stephen R Cole
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  A causal framework for classical statistical estimands in failure-time settings with competing events.

Authors:  Jessica G Young; Mats J Stensrud; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Marginal structural models for sufficient cause interactions.

Authors:  Tyler J Vanderweele; Stijn Vansteelandt; James M Robins
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Estimating Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Prevention Effects in Low-incidence Settings.

Authors:  Jacqueline E Rudolph; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron; Angela D Kashuba; Adaora A Adimora
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Are all biases missing data problems?

Authors:  Chanelle J Howe; Lauren E Cain; Joseph W Hogan
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2015-07-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.