论文检索

何时选择混杂调整或工具变量：因果效应估计的比较AI 解读

In observational studies, potential unobserved confounding is a major barrier in isolating the average causal effect (ACE). In these scenarios, two main approaches are often used: confounder adjustment for causality (CAC) and instrumental variable analysis for causation (IVAC). Nevertheless, both are subject to untestable assumptions and, therefore, it may be unclear which assumption violation scenarios one method is superior in terms of mitigating inconsistency for the ACE.…

跨研究工具变量估计的非参数复现AI 解读

Replicating causal estimates across different cohorts is crucial for increasing the integrity of epidemiological studies. However, strong assumptions regarding unmeasured confounding and effect modification often hinder this goal. By employing an instrumental variable (IV) approach and targeting the local average treatment effect (LATE), these assumptions can be relaxed to some degree; however, little work has addressed the replicability of IV estimates. In this paper, we…

观察性研究中的因果效应估计框架：混杂调整与工具变量比较AI 解读

To estimate causal effects, analysts performing observational studies in health settings utilize several strategies to mitigate bias due to confounding by indication. There are two broad classes of approaches for these purposes: use of confounders and instrumental variables (IVs). Because such approaches are largely characterized by untestable assumptions, analysts must operate under an indefinite paradigm that these methods will work imperfectly. In this tutorial, we…