A Novel Approach to Instrumental Variable Estimation: TEAM-IV
工具变量估计的新方法:TEAM-IVAI 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:摘要明确针对无效工具变量下的效应估计,并应用于孟德尔随机化,直接对应工具变量方法中的因果推断问题。
工具变量估计的新方法:TEAM-IVAI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Instrumental-variable (IV) analyses can be undermined when some instruments violate the exclusion restriction through direct effects on the outcome. Existing robust IV methods, including sisVIVE and CIIV, rely on majority- or plurality-validity conditions. We propose TEAM-IV, which targets joint validity by identifying sets of instruments that appear valid together and aggregating them, allowing reliable estimation even when only a small number of candidate instruments are valid (potentially as few as two). TEAM-IV fits MCP-penalized models of the outcome on projected exposure over overlapping instrument subsets. Instruments whose estimated direct effects are frequently shrunk to zero together (suggesting concordant validity status) form candidate ``teams'' (instrument sets). Teams are ranked by their out-of-sample predictive performance; near-best teams are unioned and used as the instrument set for the IV estimate. Across simulations varying the number, magnitude, and signs of invalid direct effects, instrument correlation, and exposure endogeneity, TEAM-IV generally attains lower absolute estimation error than sisVIVE and CIIV. Relative gains are largest when invalid instruments are prevalent. TEAM-IV is demonstrated in an empirical Mendelian randomization application using the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) concerning the effect of LDL cholesterol on carotid intima--media thickness. Two additional MESA-anchored validation studies demonstrate differences between TEAM-IV and sisVIVE under challenging invalid-instrument configurations.