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:摘要直接研究工具变量有效性、条件独立假设及其放松后的识别问题。

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
Paul Gustafson

使用近似工具变量的测量误差建模

研究问题
暴露变量存在测量误差且工具变量的条件独立性只能近似成立时,如何开展推断并权衡模型现实性与不可识别风险?
方法与思路
作者用贝叶斯先验表达工具变量大致满足条件独立性的判断,并比较近似工具变量模型与精确工具变量模型的推断。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要明确讨论放松工具变量条件后的推断,突出更现实的模型设定所带来的收益与可能失去识别的代价。
阅读关注点
应核对近似条件独立性的参数化和先验强度、模型的识别状态,以及推断对先验和精确工具变量假设的敏感性。
阅读边界
仅据Crossref摘要,近似工具变量不保证点识别;具体先验、敏感性结果及暴露与疾病关系的因果解释均未说明。

原文摘要

Summary Consider using regression modelling to relate an exposure (predictor) variable to a disease outcome (response) variable. If the exposure variable is measured with error, but this error is ignored in the analysis, then misleading inferences can result. This problem is well known and has spawned a large literature on methods which adjust for measurement error in predictor variables. One theme is that the requisite assumptions about the nature of the measurement error can be stronger than what is actually known in many practical situations. In particular, the assumptions that are required to yield a model which is formally identified from the observable data can be quite strong. The paper deals with one particular strategy for measurement error modelling, namely that of seeking an instrumental variable, i.e. a covariate S which is associated with exposure and conditionally independent of the outcome given exposure. If these two conditions hold exactly, then we call S an exact instrumental variable, and an identified model results. However, the second is not checkable empirically, since the actual exposure is unobserved. In practice then, investigators typically seek a covariate which is plausibly thought to satisfy it. We study inferences which acknowledge the approximate nature of this assumption. In particular, we consider Bayesian inference with a prior distribution that posits that S is probably close to conditionally independent of outcome given exposure. We refer to this as an approximate instrumental variable assumption. Although the approximate instrumental variable assumption is more realistic for most applications, concern arises that a non-identified model may result. Thus the paper contrasts inferences arising from the approximate instrumental variable assumption with their exact instrumental variable counterparts, with particular emphasis on the benefit of basing inferences on a more realistic model versus the cost of basing inferences on a non-identified model.

笔记与分组