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。

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。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接讨论队列研究的标准化、混杂与因果效应解释。

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
Eben Kenah

Rothman 图:流行病学因果推断的几何视角

研究问题
如何通过队列研究中的风险几何图形理解标准化,并区分混杂、效应修饰与关联度量的不可折叠性?
方法与思路
作者以二元暴露、结局和不受暴露影响的二元混杂变量为起点,在单位正方形内绘制粗风险与分层风险,并分析关联度量等高线。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,论文提供标准化与可折叠性的几何解释,提出等价简化定义,并给出可折叠性与全部等高线为直线的充要关系。
阅读关注点
应核对不同效应尺度下混杂与效应修饰的图形判据、可折叠性的定义,以及多层混杂变量推广和吸烟死亡率示例。
阅读边界
依据 arXiv 预印本摘要,同行评审及期刊接收未核实;几何刻画的具体条件和因果识别假设,摘要未完整说明。

原文摘要

Here, we explain and illustrate a geometric perspective on causal inference in cohort studies that can help epidemiologists understand the role of standardization in causal inference as well as the distinctions between confounding, effect modification, and noncollapsibility. For simplicity, we focus on a binary exposure X, a binary outcome D, and a binary confounder C that is not causally affected by X. Rothman diagrams plot risk in the unexposed on the x-axis and risk in the exposed on the y-axis. The crude risks define one point in the unit square, and the stratum-specific risks define two other points in the unit square. These three points can be used to identify confounding and effect modification, and we show briefly how these concepts generalize to confounders with more than two levels. We propose a simplified but equivalent definition of collapsibility in terms of standardization, and we show that a measure of association is collapsible if and only if all of its contour lines are straight. We illustrate these ideas using data from a study conducted in Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, where the causal effect of smoking on 20-year mortality was confounded by age. We conclude that causal inference should be taught using geometry before using regression models.

笔记与分组