Literature DB >> 21627630

A new criterion for confounder selection.

Tyler J VanderWeele1, Ilya Shpitser.   

Abstract

We propose a new criterion for confounder selection when the underlying causal structure is unknown and only limited knowledge is available. We assume all covariates being considered are pretreatment variables and that for each covariate it is known (i) whether the covariate is a cause of treatment, and (ii) whether the covariate is a cause of the outcome. The causal relationships the covariates have with one another is assumed unknown. We propose that control be made for any covariate that is either a cause of treatment or of the outcome or both. We show that irrespective of the actual underlying causal structure, if any subset of the observed covariates suffices to control for confounding then the set of covariates chosen by our criterion will also suffice. We show that other, commonly used, criteria for confounding control do not have this property. We use formal theory concerning causal diagrams to prove our result but the application of the result does not rely on familiarity with causal diagrams. An investigator simply need ask, "Is the covariate a cause of the treatment?" and "Is the covariate a cause of the outcome?" If the answer to either question is "yes" then the covariate is included for confounder control. We discuss some additional covariate selection results that preserve unconfoundedness and that may be of interest when used with our criterion.
© 2011, The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21627630      PMCID: PMC3166439          DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01619.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  7 in total

1.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán; James M Robins
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials.

Authors:  Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Re: The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials.

Authors:  Ian Shrier
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Propensity scores and M-structures.

Authors:  Arvid Sjölander
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Methodological challenges in causal research on racial and ethnic patterns of cognitive trajectories: measurement, selection, and bias.

Authors:  M Maria Glymour; Jennifer Weuve; Jarvis T Chen
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2008-09-26       Impact factor: 7.444

6.  Bias due to non-differential misclassification of polytomous confounders.

Authors:  H Brenner
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Enrique F Schisterman; Stephen R Cole; Robert W Platt
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.822

  7 in total
  81 in total

1.  Covariate selection with group lasso and doubly robust estimation of causal effects.

Authors:  Brandon Koch; David M Vock; Julian Wolfson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Generalisability of an online randomised controlled trial: an empirical analysis.

Authors:  Cheng Wang; Katie R Mollan; Michael G Hudgens; Joseph D Tucker; Heping Zheng; Weiming Tang; Li Ling
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  The ACCE method: an approach for obtaining quantitative or qualitative estimates of residual confounding that includes unmeasured confounding.

Authors:  Eric G Smith
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2014-08-11

4.  Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable.

Authors:  Felix Elwert; Christopher Winship
Journal:  Annu Rev Sociol       Date:  2014-06-02

5.  Assessing effects of cholera vaccination in the presence of interference.

Authors:  Carolina Perez-Heydrich; Michael G Hudgens; M Elizabeth Halloran; John D Clemens; Mohammad Ali; Michael E Emch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Worth the weight: using inverse probability weighted Cox models in AIDS research.

Authors:  Ashley L Buchanan; Michael G Hudgens; Stephen R Cole; Bryan Lau; Adaora A Adimora
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.205

7.  Comprehensive Support for Family Caregivers: Impact on Veteran Health Care Utilization and Costs.

Authors:  Courtney Harold Van Houtven; Valerie A Smith; Karen M Stechuchak; Megan Shepherd-Banigan; Susan Nicole Hastings; Matthew L Maciejewski; Gilbert Darryl Wieland; Maren K Olsen; Katherine E M Miller; Margaret Kabat; Jennifer Henius; Margaret Campbell-Kotler; Eugene Z Oddone
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Bias Due to Confounders for the Exposure-Competing Risk Relationship.

Authors:  Catherine R Lesko; Bryan Lau
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Doubly robust matching estimators for high dimensional confounding adjustment.

Authors:  Joseph Antonelli; Matthew Cefalu; Nathan Palmer; Denis Agniel
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Resilience is strongly associated with health-related quality of life but does not buffer work-related stress in employed persons 1 year after acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Inge Kirchberger; Katrin Burkhardt; Margit Heier; Christian Thilo; Christine Meisinger
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.