Marginal Structural Models versus Structural nested Models as Tools for Causal inference

Author(s):  
James M. Robins
2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 613-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiwei He ◽  
Alisa Stephens-Shields ◽  
Marshall Joffe

Marginal structural models are a class of causal models useful for characterizing the effect of treatment in the presence of time-varying confounding. They are more widely used than structural nested models, partly because these models are easier to understand and to implement. We extend marginal structural models to situations with clustered observations with unit- and cluster-level treatment and introduce an appropriate inferential method. We consider how to formulate models with cluster-level and unit-level treatments. For unit-level treatments, we consider cases with and without interference. We also consider the use of unit-specific inverse probability weights and certain working correlation structures to improve the efficiency of estimators in some situations. We apply our method to different scenarios including 2 or 3 units per cluster and a mixture of larger clusters. Simulation examples and data from the treatment arm of a glaucoma clinical trial were used to illustrate our method.


Epidemiology ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 550-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Robins ◽  
Miguel Ángel Hernán ◽  
Babette Brumback

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenjing Zheng ◽  
Zhehui Luo ◽  
Mark J van der Laan

Abstract In health and social sciences, research questions often involve systematic assessment of the modification of treatment causal effect by patient characteristics. In longitudinal settings, time-varying or post-intervention effect modifiers are also of interest. In this work, we investigate the robust and efficient estimation of the Counterfactual-History-Adjusted Marginal Structural Model (van der Laan MJ, Petersen M. Statistical learning of origin-specific statically optimal individualized treatment rules. Int J Biostat. 2007;3), which models the conditional intervention-specific mean outcome given a counterfactual modifier history in an ideal experiment. We establish the semiparametric efficiency theory for these models, and present a substitution-based, semiparametric efficient and doubly robust estimator using the targeted maximum likelihood estimation methodology (TMLE, e.g. van der Laan MJ, Rubin DB. Targeted maximum likelihood learning. Int J Biostat. 2006;2, van der Laan MJ, Rose S. Targeted learning: causal inference for observational and experimental data, 1st ed. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, 2011). To facilitate implementation in applications where the effect modifier is high dimensional, our third contribution is a projected influence function (and the corresponding projected TMLE estimator), which retains most of the robustness of its efficient peer and can be easily implemented in applications where the use of the efficient influence function becomes taxing. We compare the projected TMLE estimator with an Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighted estimator (e.g. Robins JM. Marginal structural models. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Section on Bayesian Statistical Science, 1-10. 1997a, Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology. 2000;11:561–570), and a non-targeted G-computation estimator (Robins JM. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods - application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Modell. 1986;7:1393–1512.). The comparative performance of these estimators is assessed in a simulation study. The use of the projected TMLE estimator is illustrated in a secondary data analysis for the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial where effect modifiers are subject to missing at random.


2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (0) ◽  
pp. 119-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Neugebauer ◽  
Mark J. van der Laan ◽  
Marshall M. Joffe ◽  
Ira B. Tager

Author(s):  
Lorena Lúcia Costa Ladeira ◽  
Sarah Pereira Martins ◽  
Cayara Mattos Costa ◽  
Elizabeth Lima Costa ◽  
Rubenice Amaral da Silva ◽  
...  

Biometrics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olli Saarela ◽  
David A. Stephens ◽  
Erica E. M. Moodie ◽  
Marina B. Klein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document