scholarly journals E-values for effect heterogeneity and conservative approximations for causal interaction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya B Mathur ◽  
Louisa Smith ◽  
Kazuki Yoshida ◽  
Peng Ding ◽  
Tyler VanderWeele

We provide sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding in estimates of effect heterogeneity and causal interaction.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennie E. Brand ◽  
Jiahui Xu ◽  
Bernard Koch ◽  
pablo geraldo

Individuals do not respond uniformly to treatments, events, or interventions. Sociologists routinely partition samples into subgroups to explore how the effects of treatments vary by covariates like race, gender, and socioeconomic status. In so doing, analysts determine the key subpopulations based on theoretical priors. Data-driven discoveries are also routine, yet the analyses by which sociologists typically go about them are problematic and seldom move us beyond our expectations, and biases, to explore new meaningful subgroups. Emerging machine learning methods allow researchers to explore sources of variation that they may not have previously considered, or envisaged. In this paper, we use causal trees to recursively partition the sample and uncover sources of treatment effect heterogeneity. We use honest estimation, splitting the sample into a training sample to grow the tree and an estimation sample to estimate leaf-specific effects. Assessing a central topic in the social inequality literature, college effects on wages, we compare what we learn from conventional approaches for exploring variation in effects to causal trees. Given our use of observational data, we use leaf-specific matching and sensitivity analyses to address confounding and offer interpretations of effects based on observed and unobserved heterogeneity. We encourage researchers to follow similar practices in their work on variation in sociological effects.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya B Mathur ◽  
Tyler VanderWeele

We recently suggested new statistical metrics for routine reporting in random-effects meta-analyses to convey evidence strength for scientifically meaningful effects under effect heterogeneity. First, given a chosen threshold of meaningful effect size, we suggested reporting the estimated proportion of true effect sizes above this threshold. Second, we suggested reporting the proportion of effect sizes below a second, possibly symmetric, threshold in the opposite direction from the estimated mean. Our previous methods applied when the true effects are approximately normal, when the number of studies is relatively large, and when the proportion is between approximately 0.15 and 0.85. Here, we additionally describe robust methods for point estimation and inference that perform well under considerably more general conditions, as we validate in an extensive simulation study. The methods are implemented in the R package MetaUtility (function prop_stronger). We describe application of the robust methods to conducting sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding in meta-analyses.


Author(s):  
Ariel Linden ◽  
Maya B. Mathur ◽  
Tyler J. VanderWeele

In this article, we introduce the evalue package, which performs sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding in observational studies using the methodology proposed by VanderWeele and Ding (2017, Annals of Internal Medicine 167: 268–274). evalue reports E-values, defined as the minimum strength of association on the risk-ratio scale that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment assignment and the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment-outcome association, conditional on the measured covariates. evalue computes E-values for point estimates (and optionally, confidence limits) for several common outcome types, including risk and rate ratios, odds ratios with common or rare outcomes, hazard ratios with common or rare outcomes, standardized mean differences in outcomes, and risk differences.


Author(s):  
Marni Brownell ◽  
Nathan Nickel ◽  
Dan Chateau ◽  
Carole Taylor ◽  
Leah Crockett ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT ObjectiveDespite the implementation of full-day kindergarten (FDK) in several Canadian provinces, there is little evidence on the long-term outcomes associated with this program. Our objective was to use population-level linked data sources from Manitoba, Canada, to determine whether FDK results in better long-term academic outcomes and reduced inequities in outcomes. ApproachUsing data held in the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy Data Repository we examined provincial reading and numeracy assessments in grades 3, 7, and 8 and a performance index in grade 9 for students in two Manitoba school divisions between 1999-2012. In School Division A (SDA), FDK is targeted in the lowest SES schools; in School Division B (SDB) FDK was gradually introduced universally. SDA FDK students were matched using propensity scores to students in an adjacent school division with similar socioeconomic status (SES) but no FDK; in SDB a stepped-wedge design was used. Logistic regressions accounted for confounders including classroom effects and sex. Gamma sensitivity analyses were used to assess sensitivity of results to unmeasured confounding. The Kakwani Progressivity Index (KPI) determined how FDK affected equity. ResultsThere were 224-544 children in FDK and 869-1923 non-FDK matches in SDA, depending on the outcome examined; numbers in SDB ranged from 335-707 (FDK) and 222-475 (non-FDK). Including interactions, 35 comparisons were examined in SDA and 24 in SDB. None of the outcomes examined in SDB showed statistically significant effects of FDK that were robust to unmeasured confounding. In SDA there were only 3 statistically significant and robust findings of benefits of FDK, all related to math. Comparisons of KPIs for FDK and non-FDK children in both school divisions demonstrated inequities in outcomes associated with SES, however there were no significant differences in equity between the FDK and non-FDK children for any of the outcomes. ConclusionsOur findings indicate no apparent benefits of universal FDK, and limited benefits from targeted FDK, specifically long-term improvements in numeracy for low-income girls. No reductions in inequity were found. Decisions regarding FDK implementation should weigh the costs of this program against the limited long-term academic benefits.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya B Mathur ◽  
Tyler VanderWeele

Meta-analyses contribute critically to cumulative science, but they can produce misleading conclusions if their constituent primary studies are biased, for example by unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies. We provide practical guidance on how meta-analysts can address confounding and other biases that affect studies' internal validity, focusing primarily on sensitivity analyses that help quantify how biased the meta-analysis estimates might be. We review a number of sensitivity analysis methods to do so, especially recent developments that are straightforward to implement and interpret and that use somewhat less stringent statistical assumptions than earlier methods. We give recommendations for how these methods could be applied in practice and illustrate using a previously published meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses can provide informative quantitative summaries of evidence strength, and we suggest reporting them routinely in meta-analyses of potentially biased studies. This recommendation in no way diminishes the importance of defining study eligibility criteria that reduce bias and of characterizing studies’ risks of bias qualitatively.


2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Babette A. Brumback ◽  
Miguel A. Hernán ◽  
Sebastien J. P. A. Haneuse ◽  
James M. Robins

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf H H Groenwold ◽  
David B Nelson ◽  
Kristin L Nichol ◽  
Arno W Hoes ◽  
Eelko Hak

2021 ◽  
pp. 008117502199350
Author(s):  
Jennie E. Brand ◽  
Jiahui Xu ◽  
Bernard Koch ◽  
Pablo Geraldo

Individuals do not respond uniformly to treatments, such as events or interventions. Sociologists routinely partition samples into subgroups to explore how the effects of treatments vary by selected covariates, such as race and gender, on the basis of theoretical priors. Data-driven discoveries are also routine, yet the analyses by which sociologists typically go about them are often problematic and seldom move us beyond our biases to explore new meaningful subgroups. Emerging machine learning methods based on decision trees allow researchers to explore sources of variation that they may not have previously considered or envisaged. In this article, the authors use tree-based machine learning, that is, causal trees, to recursively partition the sample to uncover sources of effect heterogeneity. Assessing a central topic in social inequality, college effects on wages, the authors compare what is learned from covariate and propensity score–based partitioning approaches with recursive partitioning based on causal trees. Decision trees, although superseded by forests for estimation, can be used to uncover subpopulations responsive to treatments. Using observational data, the authors expand on the existing causal tree literature by applying leaf-specific effect estimation strategies to adjust for observed confounding, including inverse propensity weighting, nearest neighbor matching, and doubly robust causal forests. We also assess localized balance metrics and sensitivity analyses to address the possibility of differential imbalance and unobserved confounding. The authors encourage researchers to follow similar data exploration practices in their work on variation in sociological effects and offer a straightforward framework by which to do so.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 1509-1516
Author(s):  
Alexandre Cusson ◽  
Claire Infante-Rivard

Abstract Background Unmeasured confounding can bias the relationship between exposure and outcome. Sensitivity analyses generate bias-adjusted measures but these are not much used; this may change with the availability of the E-value (for evidence for causality in observational studies), appealing for its ease of calculation. However, as currently proposed, the E-value has some practical limitations that may reduce its use. Methods We first provide some insight into the relationship between two established measures for unmeasured confounding: ‘the bias factor’ and the maximum value this bias factor can take (‘the B bias’). These measures are the statistical foundation for the E-value. We use them to develop new E-value formulas for situations when it is not currently applicable such as e.g. when, not unusually, a negative relation between unmeasured confounder and outcome and a positive one with exposure are postulated. We also provide E-values on the odds ratio scale because, currently, even when using the odds ratio as the study measure in the calculation of E-value, the result is to be interpreted as a relative risk, which is somewhat inconvenient. Results The additional formulas for the E-value measure make it applicable in all possible scenarios defined by the combined directions between unmeasured confounder and both the exposure and outcome. In addition, E-value measures can now be interpreted as odds ratios if the observed results are reported on the same scale. Conclusions The E-value is part of newer sensitivity analyses methods for unmeasured confounding. We provide insight into its structure, underscoring its advantages and limitations, and expand its applications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document