论文检索

因果元分析：重新审视循证医学的基础AI 解读

Meta-analysis, by synthesizing effect estimates from multiple studies conducted in diverse settings, stands at the top of the evidence hierarchy in clinical research. Yet, conventional approaches based on fixed- or random-effects models lack a causal framework, which may limit their interpretability and utility for public policy. Incorporating causal inference reframes meta-analysis as the estimation of well-defined causal effects on clearly specified populations, enabling a…

风险比、优势比与风险差：哪种因果效应尺度更易推广？AI 解读

There are many measures to report so-called treatment or causal effects: absolute difference, ratio, odds ratio, number needed to treat, and so on. The choice of a measure, e.g. absolute versus relative, is often debated because it leads to different impressions of the benefit or risk of a treatment. Besides, different causal measures may lead to various treatment effect heterogeneity: some input variables may have an influence on some causal measures and no effect at all on…

随机试验重加权推广：有限样本误差与变量选择AI 解读

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) may suffer from limited scope. In particular, samples may be unrepresentative: some RCTs over- or under- sample individuals with certain characteristics compared to the target population, for which one wants conclusions on treatment effectiveness. Re-weighting trial individuals to match the target population can improve the treatment effect estimation. In this work, we establish the exact expressions of the bias and variance of such…

目标总体的因果效应：处理协变量缺失的敏感性分析AI 解读

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard for estimating causal effect, but they may lack external validity when the population eligible to the RCT is substantially different from the target population. Having at hand a sample of the target population of interest allows us to generalize the causal effect. Identifying the treatment effect in the target population requires covariates to capture all treatment effect modifiers that are shifted…