Commentary: The formal approach to quantitative causal inference in epidemiology: misguided or misrepresented?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Daniel RM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5841837 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Commentary: The formal approach to quantitative causal inference in epidemiology: misguided or misrepresented?
Daniel Rhian M RM De Stavola Bianca L BL Vansteelandt Stijn S
International journal of epidemiology 20161201 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:In causal inference, parametric models are usually employed to address causal questions estimating the effect of interest. However, parametric models rely on the correct model specification assumption that, if not met, leads to biased effect estimates. Correct model specification is challenging, especially in high-dimensional settings. Incorporating Machine Learning (ML) into causal analyses may reduce the bias arising from model misspecification, since ML methods do not require the specification of a functional form of the relationship between variables. However, when ML predictions are directly plugged in a predefined formula of the effect of interest, there is the risk of introducing a "plug-in bias" in the effect measure. To overcome this problem and to achieve useful asymptotic properties, new estimators that combine the predictive potential of ML and the ability of traditional statistical methods to make inference about population parameters have been proposed. For epidemiologists interested in taking advantage of ML for causal inference investigations, we provide an overview of three estimators that represent the current state-of-art, namely Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE), Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW) and Double/Debiased Machine Learning (DML).
| S-EPMC11599438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Difference-in-differences is undoubtedly one of the most widely used methods for evaluating the causal effect of an intervention in observational (i.e., nonrandomized) settings. The approach is typically used when pre- and postexposure outcome measurements are available, and one can reasonably assume that the association of the unobserved confounder with the outcome has the same absolute magnitude in the two exposure arms and is constant over time; a so-called parallel trends assumption. The parallel trends assumption may not be credible in many practical settings, for example, if the outcome is binary, a count, or polytomous, as well as when an uncontrolled confounder exhibits nonadditive effects on the distribution of the outcome, even if such effects are constant over time. We introduce an alternative approach that replaces the parallel trends assumption with an odds ratio equi-confounding assumption under which an association between treatment and the potential outcome under no treatment is identified with a well-specified generalized linear model relating the pre-exposure outcome and the exposure. Because the proposed method identifies any causal effect that is conceivably identified in the absence of confounding bias, including nonlinear effects such as quantile treatment effects, the approach is aptly called universal difference-in-differences. We describe and illustrate both fully parametric and more robust semiparametric universal difference-in-differences estimators in a real-world application concerning the causal effects of a Zika virus outbreak on birth rate in Brazil. A supplementary digital video is available at: http://links.lww.com/EDE/C90.
| S-EPMC10683972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systems models, which by design aim to capture multi-level complexity, are a natural choice of tool for bridging the divide between social epidemiology and causal inference. In this commentary, we discuss the potential uses of complex systems models for improving our understanding of quantitative causal effects in social epidemiology. To put systems models in context, we will describe how this approach could be used to optimise the distribution of COVID-19 response resources to minimise social inequalities during and after the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8849440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewWe review the application and limitations of two implementations of the "case-only design" in injury epidemiology with example analyses of Fatality Analysis Reporting System data.Recent findingsThe term "case-only design" covers a variety of epidemiologic designs; here, two implementations of the design are reviewed: (1) studies to uncover etiological heterogeneity and (2) studies to measure exposure effect modification. These two designs produce results that require different interpretations and rely upon different assumptions. The key assumption of case-only designs for exposure effect modification, the more commonly used of the two designs, does not commonly hold for injuries and so results from studies using this design cannot be interpreted. Case-only designs to identify etiological heterogeneity in injury risk are interpretable but only when the case-series is conceptualized as arising from an underlying cohort.SummaryThe results of studies using case-only designs are commonly misinterpreted in the injury literature.
| S-EPMC10161782 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11566246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose a Bayesian nonparametric approach (BNP) for causal inference on quantiles in the presence of many confounders. In particular, we define relevant causal quantities and specify BNP models to avoid bias from restrictive parametric assumptions. We first use Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) to model the propensity score and then construct the distribution of potential outcomes given the propensity score using a Dirichlet process mixture (DPM) of normals model. We thoroughly evaluate the operating characteristics of our approach and compare it to Bayesian and frequentist competitors. We use our approach to answer an important clinical question involving acute kidney injury using electronic health records.
| S-EPMC7551426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Observational epidemiologic studies are prone to confounding, measurement error, and reverse causation, undermining robust causal inference. Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants to proxy modifiable exposures to generate more reliable estimates of the causal effects of these exposures on diseases and their outcomes. MR has seen widespread adoption within cardio-metabolic epidemiology, but also holds much promise for identifying possible interventions for cancer prevention and treatment. However, some methodologic challenges in the implementation of MR are particularly pertinent when applying this method to cancer etiology and prognosis, including reverse causation arising from disease latency and selection bias in studies of cancer progression. These issues must be carefully considered to ensure appropriate design, analysis, and interpretation of such studies. In this review, we provide an overview of the key principles and assumptions of MR, focusing on applications of this method to the study of cancer etiology and prognosis. We summarize recent studies in the cancer literature that have adopted a MR framework to highlight strengths of this approach compared with conventional epidemiological studies. Finally, limitations of MR and recent methodologic developments to address them are discussed, along with the translational opportunities they present to inform public health and clinical interventions in cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 995-1010. ©2018 AACR.
| S-EPMC6522350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Calls for the adoption of complex systems approaches, including agent-based modeling, in the field of epidemiology have largely centered on the potential for such methods to examine complex disease etiologies, which are characterized by feedback behavior, interference, threshold dynamics, and multiple interacting causal effects. However, considerable theoretical and practical issues impede the capacity of agent-based methods to examine and evaluate causal effects and thus illuminate new areas for intervention. We build on this work by describing how agent-based models can be used to simulate counterfactual outcomes in the presence of complexity. We show that these models are of particular utility when the hypothesized causal mechanisms exhibit a high degree of interdependence between multiple causal effects and when interference (i.e., one person's exposure affects the outcome of others) is present and of intrinsic scientific interest. Although not without challenges, agent-based modeling (and complex systems methods broadly) represent a promising novel approach to identify and evaluate complex causal effects, and they are thus well suited to complement other modern epidemiologic methods of etiologic inquiry.
| S-EPMC4351348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral approaches are commonly used to estimate the effect of diet on changes of various intermediate disease markers in prospective studies, including "change-score analysis", "concurrent change-change analysis" and "lagged change-change analysis". Although empirical evidence suggests that concurrent change-change analysis is most robust, consistent, and biologically plausible, in-depth dissection and comparison of these approaches from a causal inference perspective is lacking. We intend to explicitly elucidate and compare the underlying causal model, causal estimand and interpretation of these approaches, intuitively illustrate it with directed acyclic graph (DAG), and further clarify strengths and limitations of the recommended concurrent change-change analysis through simulations.MethodsCausal model and DAG are deployed to clarify the causal estimand and interpretation of each approach theoretically. Monte Carlo simulation is used to explore the performance of distinct approaches under different extents of time-invariant heterogeneity and the performance of concurrent change-change analysis when its causal identification assumptions are violated.ResultsConcurrent change-change analysis targets the contemporaneous effect of exposure on outcome (measured at the same survey wave), which is more relevant and plausible in studying the associations of diet and intermediate biomarkers in prospective studies, while change-score analysis and lagged change-change analysis target the effect of exposure on outcome after one-period timespan (typically several years). Concurrent change-change analysis always yields unbiased estimates even with severe unobserved time-invariant confounding, while the other two approaches are always biased even without time-invariant heterogeneity. However, concurrent change-change analysis produces almost linearly increasing estimation bias with violation of its causal identification assumptions becoming more serious.ConclusionsConcurrent change-change analysis might be the most superior method in studying the diet and intermediate biomarkers in prospective studies, which targets the most plausible estimand and circumvents the bias from unobserved individual heterogeneity. Importantly, careful examination of the vital identification assumptions behind it should be underscored before applying this promising method.
| S-EPMC10898035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many spatial phenomena exhibit interference, where exposures at one location may affect the response at other locations. Because interference violates the stable unit treatment value assumption, standard methods for causal inference do not apply. We propose a new causal framework to recover direct and spill-over effects in the presence of spatial interference, taking into account that exposures at nearby locations are more influential than exposures at locations further apart. Under the no unmeasured confounding assumption, we show that a generalized propensity score is sufficient to remove all measured confounding. To reduce dimensionality issues, we propose a Bayesian spline-based regression model accounting for a sufficient set of variables for the generalized propensity score. A simulation study demonstrates the accuracy and coverage properties. We apply the method to estimate the causal effect of wildland fires on air pollution in the Western United States over 2005-2018.
| S-EPMC10790180 | biostudies-literature