跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确讨论未测量混杂、处理效应识别、协变量调整及工具变量的偏差放大,研究对象直接属于因果推断。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
P. Ding
T.J. Vanderweele
J. M. Robins

一般结果与混杂情形下工具变量的偏差放大作用

研究问题
在处理与结果之间存在未测量混杂时,调整某些处理前协变量为何可能增大估计偏差,工具变量的这种作用能否超越线性模型?
方法与思路
作者提出适用于较广模型类的一般理论,以特定单调性假设刻画偏差放大,并讨论加性或乘性处理模型下的因果图解释。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称理论将既有线性模型中的偏差放大现象推广到更一般的模型,并将部分单调性条件解释为因果图箭头的符号。
阅读关注点
阅读全文时应核对所比较的调整与未调整估计量、偏差定义、单调性条件,以及处理模型如何支持因果图符号解释。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;具体单调性条件与模型范围未列出,不能推出调整工具变量在所有情况下都会增大偏差。

原文摘要

Drawing causal inference with observational studies is the central pillar of many disciplines. One sufficient condition for identifying the causal effect is that the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded conditional on the observed covariates. It is often believed that the more covariates we condition on, the more plausible this unconfoundedness assumption is. This belief has had a huge impact on practical causal inference, suggesting that we should adjust for all pretreatment covariates. However, when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment and outcome, estimators adjusting for some pretreatment covariate might have greater bias than estimators without adjusting for this covariate. This kind of covariate is called a bias amplifier, and includes instrumental variables that are independent of the confounder, and affect the outcome only through the treatment. Previously, theoretical results for this phenomenon have been established only for linear models. We fill in this gap in the literature by providing a general theory, showing that this phenomenon happens under a wide class of models satisfying certain monotonicity assumptions. We further show that when the treatment follows an additive or multiplicative model conditional on the instrumental variable and the confounder, these monotonicity assumptions can be interpreted as the signs of the arrows of the causal diagrams.

笔记与分组