scholarly journals Assessing Treatment-Selection Markers using a Potential Outcomes Framework

Biometrics ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Huang ◽  
Peter B. Gilbert ◽  
Holly Janes
2021 ◽  
pp. 096228022110028
Author(s):  
Yun Li ◽  
Irina Bondarenko ◽  
Michael R Elliott ◽  
Timothy P Hofer ◽  
Jeremy MG Taylor

With medical tests becoming increasingly available, concerns about over-testing, over-treatment and health care cost dramatically increase. Hence, it is important to understand the influence of testing on treatment selection in general practice. Most statistical methods focus on average effects of testing on treatment decisions. However, this may be ill-advised, particularly for patient subgroups that tend not to benefit from such tests. Furthermore, missing data are common, representing large and often unaddressed threats to the validity of most statistical methods. Finally, it is often desirable to conduct analyses that can be interpreted causally. Using the Rubin Causal Model framework, we propose to classify patients into four potential outcomes subgroups, defined by whether or not a patient’s treatment selection is changed by the test result and by the direction of how the test result changes treatment selection. This subgroup classification naturally captures the differential influence of medical testing on treatment selections for different patients, which can suggest targets to improve the utilization of medical tests. We can then examine patient characteristics associated with patient potential outcomes subgroup memberships. We used multiple imputation methods to simultaneously impute the missing potential outcomes as well as regular missing values. This approach can also provide estimates of many traditional causal quantities of interest. We find that explicitly incorporating causal inference assumptions into the multiple imputation process can improve the precision for some causal estimates of interest. We also find that bias can occur when the potential outcomes conditional independence assumption is violated; sensitivity analyses are proposed to assess the impact of this violation. We applied the proposed methods to examine the influence of 21-gene assay, the most commonly used genomic test in the United States, on chemotherapy selection among breast cancer patients.


2021 ◽  
pp. 016502542098164
Author(s):  
Jorge Cuartas ◽  
Dana Charles McCoy

Mediation has played a critical role in developmental theory and research. Yet, developmentalists rarely discuss the methodological challenges of establishing causality in mediation analysis or potential strategies to improve the identification of causal mediation effects. In this article, we discuss the potential outcomes framework from statistics as a means for highlighting several fundamental challenges of establishing causality in mediation analysis, including the difficulty of meeting the key assumption of sequential ignorability, even in experimental studies. We argue that this framework—which, although commonplace in other fields, has not yet been taken up in developmental science—can inform solutions to these challenges. Based on the framework, we offer a series of recommendations for improving causal inference in mediation analysis, including an overview of best practices in both study design and analysis, as well as resources for conducting analysis. In doing so, our overall objective in this article is to support the use of rigorous methods for understanding questions of mechanism in developmental science.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (16_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3651-3651
Author(s):  
S. Y. Kwok ◽  
W. Kim ◽  
S. Tom ◽  
C. Christopherson ◽  
D. Wolfson ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 189 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J VanderWeele

Abstract There are tensions inherent between many of the social exposures examined within social epidemiology and the assumptions embedded in quantitative potential-outcomes-based causal inference framework. The potential-outcomes framework characteristically requires a well-defined hypothetical intervention. As noted by Galea and Hernán (Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(3):167–170), for many social exposures, such well-defined hypothetical exposures do not exist or there is no consensus on what they might be. Nevertheless, the quantitative potential-outcomes framework can still be useful for the study of some of these social exposures by creative adaptations that 1) redefine the exposure, 2) separate the exposure from the hypothetical intervention, or 3) allow for a distribution of hypothetical interventions. These various approaches and adaptations are reviewed and discussed. However, even these approaches have their limits. For certain important historical and social determinants of health such as social movements or wars, the quantitative potential-outcomes framework with well-defined hypothetical interventions is the wrong tool. Other modes of inquiry are needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document