Causal Inference for Case Studies in Behavioral Health
行为健康个案研究的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接提出未测量混杂下的因果目标,并比较结构因果模型中的观察与干预支持集。
行为健康个案研究的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We present a framework for causal inference in behavioral health case studies -- and observational N=1 settings more generally -- under unmeasured confounding. The framework rests on a class of causal estimands, termed $Ω$ estimands, defined as contrasts of functions of an outcome variable's support rather than its distribution. Because such estimands do not depend on how probability is distributed over supports, they are insensitive to the confounding that limits other methods. We prove that, in a structural causal model, the observational and interventional supports of an outcome coincide under a single assumption -- positivity -- without any requirement that confounders be known, measured, or adjusted for. Two optional conditions extend the framework: one licensing a client's recalled baseline as a stand-in for sparsely measured baseline periods, and one connecting support contrasts to conventional mean contrasts through an expected-average identity. We adopt a subjectivist (de Finetti) interpretation of probability and situate the framework within mandates for measurement-based care. A case study of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety illustrates an elementary approach a provider can use.