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:摘要直接研究观察性因果推断中未测量混杂的敏感性条件。

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

风险差的广义 Cornfield 条件

研究问题
观察性研究中的未测量混杂需要有多强,才能解释掉观察到的暴露效应;风险差尺度及多类别混杂因素如何改变判断?
方法与思路
作者将经典 Cornfield 条件扩展到风险差和类别型混杂因素,并研究两类关联强度最大值应满足的阈值。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,新条件对关联强度最大值给出更严格的阈值,既有结果也可在更弱假设下成立,实例展示了额外信息。
阅读关注点
应核对关联强度的具体定义、风险差阈值的推导、所谓更弱假设的内容,以及类别型混杂因素如何进入条件。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;摘要未列出具体阈值与假设,不能判断实际研究中的混杂是否足以解释效应。

原文摘要

A central question in causal inference with observational studies is the sensitivity of conclusions to unmeasured confounding. The classical Cornfield condition allows us to assess whether an unmeasured binary confounder can explain away the observed relative risk of the exposure on the outcome. It states that for an unmeasured confounder to explain away an observed relative risk, the association between the unmeasured confounder and the exposure and the association between the unmeasured confounder and the outcome must both be larger than the observed relative risk. In this paper, we extend the classical Cornfield condition in three directions. First, we consider analogous conditions for the risk difference and allow for a categorical, not just a binary, unmeasured confounder. Second, we provide more stringent thresholds that the maximum of the above-mentioned associations must satisfy, rather than weaker conditions that both must satisfy. Third, we show that all the earlier results on Cornfield conditions hold under weaker assumptions than previously used. We illustrate the potential applications by real examples, where our new conditions give more information than the classical ones.

笔记与分组