论文检索

利用多个环境双重稳健识别处理效应AI 解读

Practical and ethical constraints often require the use of observational data for causal inference, particularly in medicine and social sciences. Yet, observational datasets are prone to confounding, potentially compromising the validity of causal conclusions. While it is possible to correct for biases if the underlying causal graph is known, this is rarely a feasible ask in practical scenarios. A common strategy is to adjust for all available covariates, yet this approach…

小子群中关键处理效应偏差的检测AI 解读

Randomized trials are considered the gold standard for making informed decisions in medicine, yet they often lack generalizability to the patient populations in clinical practice. Observational studies, on the other hand, cover a broader patient population but are prone to various biases. Thus, before using an observational study for decision-making, it is crucial to benchmark its treatment effect estimates against those derived from a randomized trial. We propose a novel…

借助外部数据稳健估计随机试验中的异质性处理效应AI 解读

Randomized trials are typically designed to detect average treatment effects but often lack the statistical power to uncover individual-level treatment effect heterogeneity, limiting their value for personalized decision-making. To address this, we propose the QR-learner, a model-agnostic learner that estimates conditional average treatment effects (CATE) within the trial population by leveraging external data from other trials or observational studies. The proposed method…

随机试验中外部对照数据的稳健整合AI 解读

One approach for increasing the efficiency of randomized trials is the use of "external controls" -- individuals who received the control treatment studied in the trial during routine practice or in prior experimental studies. Existing external control methods, however, can be biased if the populations underlying the trial and the external control data are not exchangeable. Here, we characterize a randomization-aware class of treatment effect estimators in the population…

揭示观测研究中的偏差机制AI 解读

Observational studies are a key resource for causal inference but are often affected by systematic biases. Prior work has focused mainly on detecting these biases, via sensitivity analyses and comparisons with randomized controlled trials, or mitigating them through debiasing techniques. However, there remains a lack of methodology for uncovering the underlying mechanisms driving these biases, e.g., whether due to hidden confounding or selection of participants. In this…