Sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding in causal inference based on exponential tilting and super learner

Author(s):  
Mi Zhou ◽  
Weixin Yao
Author(s):  
Iván Díaz ◽  
Mark J. van der Laan

AbstractIn this article, we present a sensitivity analysis for drawing inferences about parameters that are not estimable from observed data without additional assumptions. We present the methodology using two different examples: a causal parameter that is not identifiable due to violations of the randomization assumption, and a parameter that is not estimable in the nonparametric model due to measurement error. Existing methods for tackling these problems assume a parametric model for the type of violation to the identifiability assumption and require the development of new estimators and inference for every new model. The method we present can be used in conjunction with any existing asymptotically linear estimator of an observed data parameter that approximates the unidentifiable full data parameter and does not require the study of additional models.


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence C McCandless ◽  
Julian M Somers

Causal mediation analysis techniques enable investigators to examine whether the effect of the exposure on an outcome is mediated by some intermediate variable. Motivated by a data example from epidemiology, we consider estimation of natural direct and indirect effects on a survival outcome. An important concern is bias from confounders that may be unmeasured. Estimating natural direct and indirect effects requires an elaborate series of assumptions in order to identify the target quantities. The analyst must carefully measure and adjust for important predictors of the exposure, mediator and outcome. Omitting important confounders may bias the results in a way that is difficult to predict. In recent years, several methods have been proposed to explore sensitivity to unmeasured confounding in mediation analysis. However, many of these methods limit complexity by relying on a handful of sensitivity parameters that are difficult to interpret, or alternatively, by assuming that specific patterns of unmeasured confounding are absent. Instead, we propose a simple Bayesian sensitivity analysis technique that is indexed by four bias parameters. Our method has the unique advantage that it is able to simultaneously assess unmeasured confounding in the mediator–outcome, exposure–outcome and exposure–mediator relationships. It is a natural Bayesian extension of the sensitivity analysis methodologies of VanderWeele, which have been widely used in the epidemiology literature. We present simulation findings, and additionally, we illustrate the method in an epidemiological study of mortality rates in criminal offenders from British Columbia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-596
Author(s):  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Yoo-Mi Chin ◽  
James D. Stamey ◽  
Joon Jin Song

2019 ◽  
Vol 188 (9) ◽  
pp. 1682-1685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hailey R Banack

Abstract Authors aiming to estimate causal effects from observational data frequently discuss 3 fundamental identifiability assumptions for causal inference: exchangeability, consistency, and positivity. However, too often, studies fail to acknowledge the importance of measurement bias in causal inference. In the presence of measurement bias, the aforementioned identifiability conditions are not sufficient to estimate a causal effect. The most fundamental requirement for estimating a causal effect is knowing who is truly exposed and unexposed. In this issue of the Journal, Caniglia et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;000(00):000–000) present a thorough discussion of methodological challenges when estimating causal effects in the context of research on distance to obstetrical care. Their article highlights empirical strategies for examining nonexchangeability due to unmeasured confounding and selection bias and potential violations of the consistency assumption. In addition to the important considerations outlined by Caniglia et al., authors interested in estimating causal effects from observational data should also consider implementing quantitative strategies to examine the impact of misclassification. The objective of this commentary is to emphasize that you can’t drive a car with only three wheels, and you also cannot estimate a causal effect in the presence of exposure misclassification bias.


2017 ◽  
Vol 167 (4) ◽  
pp. 285 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Russell Localio ◽  
Catherine B. Stack ◽  
Michael E. Griswold

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (22) ◽  
pp. 2552-2564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J. VanderWeele ◽  
Bhramar Mukherjee ◽  
Jinbo Chen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document