Literature DB >> 29033459

Instrumental variables as bias amplifiers with general outcome and confounding.

P Ding1, T J VanderWeele2, J M Robins2.   

Abstract

Drawing causal inference with observational studies is the central pillar of many disciplines. One sufficient condition for identifying the causal effect is that the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded conditional on the observed covariates. It is often believed that the more covariates we condition on, the more plausible this unconfoundedness assumption is. This belief has had a huge impact on practical causal inference, suggesting that we should adjust for all pretreatment covariates. However, when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment and outcome, estimators adjusting for some pretreatment covariate might have greater bias than estimators without adjusting for this covariate. This kind of covariate is called a bias amplifier, and includes instrumental variables that are independent of the confounder, and affect the outcome only through the treatment. Previously, theoretical results for this phenomenon have been established only for linear models. We fill in this gap in the literature by providing a general theory, showing that this phenomenon happens under a wide class of models satisfying certain monotonicity assumptions. We further show that when the treatment follows an additive or multiplicative model conditional on the instrumental variable and the confounder, these monotonicity assumptions can be interpreted as the signs of the arrows of the causal diagrams.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causal inference; Directed acyclic graph; Interaction; Monotonicity; Potential outcome

Year:  2017        PMID: 29033459      PMCID: PMC5636691          DOI: 10.1093/biomet/asx009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrika        ISSN: 0006-3444            Impact factor:   2.445


  13 in total

1.  Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias.

Authors:  Sander Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Philosophy of inferences from retrospective studies.

Authors:  H F DORN
Journal:  Am J Public Health Nations Health       Date:  1953-06

3.  Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification.

Authors:  Judea Pearl
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.

Authors:  Jessica A Myers; Jeremy A Rassen; Joshua J Gagne; Krista F Huybrechts; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Marshall M Joffe; Robert J Glynn
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  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

6.  Propensity scores and M-structures.

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

7.  Matching on provider is risky.

Authors:  Alexander M Walker
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding.

Authors:  S Greenland; J M Robins
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 7.196

10.  A new criterion for confounder selection.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Ilya Shpitser
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  11 in total

1.  Evaluating large-scale propensity score performance through real-world and synthetic data experiments.

Authors:  Yuxi Tian; Martijn J Schuemie; Marc A Suchard
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  Evaluating Public Health Interventions: 8. Causal Inference for Time-Invariant Interventions.

Authors:  Donna Spiegelman; Xin Zhou
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  State of the Art Causal Inference in the Presence of Extraneous Covariates: A Simulation Study.

Authors:  Raluca Cobzaru; Sharon Jiang; Kenney Ng; Stan Finkelstein; Roy Welsch; Zach Shahn
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2022-02-21

4.  Causal simulation experiments: Lessons from bias amplification.

Authors:  Tyrel Stokes; Russell Steele; Ian Shrier
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  Bias amplification in the g-computation algorithm for time-varying treatments: a case study of industry payments and prescription of opioid products.

Authors:  Kosuke Inoue; Atsushi Goto; Naoki Kondo; Tomohiro Shinozaki
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 4.612

6.  Combining Multiple Observational Data Sources to Estimate Causal Effects.

Authors:  Shu Yang; Peng Ding
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 5.033

7.  Recommendations for the use of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis research.

Authors:  Gabrielle Simoneau; Fabio Pellegrini; Thomas Pa Debray; Julie Rouette; Johanna Muñoz; Robert W Platt; John Petkau; Justin Bohn; Changyu Shen; Carl de Moor; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 5.855

8.  Principles of confounder selection.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.

Authors:  John W Jackson; Ian Schmid; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2017-11-06

10.  Comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder: a population-based observational study protocol in British Columbia, Canada.

Authors:  Micah Piske; Trevor Thomson; Emanuel Krebs; Natt Hongdilokkul; Julie Bruneau; Sander Greenland; Paul Gustafson; M Ehsan Karim; Lawrence C McCandless; Malcolm Maclure; Robert W Platt; Uwe Siebert; M Eugenia Socías; Judith I Tsui; Evan Wood; Bohdan Nosyk
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.