When studying the causal effect of $x$ on $y$, researchers may conduct regression and report a confidence interval for the slope coefficient $β_{x}$. This common confidence interval provides an assessment of uncertainty from sampling error, but it does not assess uncertainty from confounding. An intervention on $x$ may produce a response in $y$ that is unexpected, and our misinterpretation of the slope happens when there are confounding factors $w$. When $w$ are measured we may conduct multiple regression, but when $w$ are unmeasured it is common practice to include a precautionary statement when reporting the confidence interval, warning against unwarranted causal interpretation. If the goal is robust causal interpretation then we can do something more informative. Uncertainty in the specification of three confounding parameters can be propagated through an equation to produce a confounding interval. Here we develop supporting mathematical theory and describe an example application. Our proposed methodology applies well to studies of a continuous response or rare outcome. It is a general method for quantifying error from model uncertainty. Whereas confidence intervals are used to assess uncertainty from unmeasured individuals, confounding intervals can be used to assess uncertainty from unmeasured attributes.
Scientists have been interested in estimating causal peer effects to understand how people's behaviors are affected by their network peers. However, it is well known that identification and estimation of causal peer effects are challenging in observational studies for two reasons. The first is the identification challenge due to unmeasured network confounding, for example, homophily bias and contextual confounding. The second issue is network dependence of observations, which one must take into account for valid statistical inference. Negative control variables, also known as placebo variables…
Cox's proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical models to evaluate associations of exposure with a censored failure time outcome. When confounding factors are not fully observed, the exposure hazard ratio estimated using a Cox model is subject to unmeasured confounding bias. To address this, we propose a novel approach for the identification and estimation of the causal hazard ratio in the presence of unmeasured confounding factors. Our approach is based on a binary instrumental variable, and an additional no-interaction assumption in a first stage regression of the tre…
An observational study may be biased for estimating causal effects by failing to control for unmeasured confounders. This paper proposes a new quantity called the "sensitivity value", which is defined as the minimum strength of unmeasured confounders needed to change the qualitative conclusions of a naive analysis assuming no unmeasured confounder. We establish the asymptotic normality of the sensitivity value in pair-matched observational studies. The theoretical results are then used to approximate the power of a sensitivity analysis and select the design of a study. We explore the potential…
We introduce several methods for assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding in marginal structural models; importantly we allow treatments to be discrete or continuous, static or time-varying. We consider three sensitivity models: a propensity-based model, an outcome-based model, and a subset confounding model, in which only a fraction of the population is subject to unmeasured confounding. In each case we develop efficient estimators and confidence intervals for bounds on the causal parameters.
Automating the Selection of Proxy Variables of Unmeasured Confounders
Beijing Technology and Business University（北京工商大学）；Guangdong University of Technology（广东工业大学）；Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence（穆罕默德·本·扎耶德人工智能大学）；Peking University（北京大学）
Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Estimation with Time-varying Unmeasured Confounding
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto（多伦多大学达拉·兰纳公共卫生学院）；Public Health Ontario（安大略省公共卫生局）；Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers University（罗格斯大学罗格斯公共卫生学院）；Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology Nutrition, The Hospital for Sick Children（儿童医院胃肠病学、肝病营养科）；University of Utah and Intermountain Healthcare Primary Children’s Hospital（犹他大学和山脊医疗初级儿童医院）；Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto（多伦多大学卫生政策、管理与评估研究所）
We present a method to analyze sensitivity of frequentist inferences to potential nonignorability of the missingness mechanism. Rather than starting from the selection model, as is typical in such analyses, we assume that the missingness arises through unmeasured confounding. Our model permits the development of measures of sensitivity that are analogous to those for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. We define an index of sensitivity, denoted MinNI, to be the minimum degree of nonignorability needed to change the mean value of the estimate of interest by a designated amount. We …
Although the exposure can be randomly assigned in studies of mediation effects, any form of direct intervention on the mediator is often infeasible. As a result, unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding can seldom be ruled out. We propose semiparametric identification of natural direct and indirect effects in the presence of unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding by leveraging heteroskedasticity restrictions on the observed data law. For inference, we develop semiparametric estimators that remain consistent under partial misspecifications of the observed data model. We illustrate the proposed …
The use of causal mediation analysis to evaluate the pathways by which an exposure affects an outcome is widespread in the social and biomedical sciences. Recent advances in this area have established formal conditions for identification and estimation of natural direct and indirect effects. However, these conditions typically involve stringent no unmeasured confounding assumptions and that the mediator has been measured without error. These assumptions may fail to hold in practice where mediation methods are often applied. The goal of this paper is two-fold. First, we show that the natural in…
Propensity score matching is a common tool for adjusting for observed confounding in observational studies, but is known to have limitations in the presence of unmeasured confounding. In many settings, researchers are confronted with spatially-indexed data where the relative locations of the observational units may serve as a useful proxy for unmeasured confounding that varies according to a spatial pattern. We develop a new method, termed Distance Adjusted Propensity Score Matching (DAPSm) that incorporates information on units' spatial proximity into a propensity score matching procedure. We…
Unmeasured confounding is a threat to causal inference in observational studies. In recent years, use of negative controls to mitigate unmeasured confounding has gained increasing recognition and popularity. Negative controls have a longstanding tradition in laboratory sciences and epidemiology to rule out non-causal explanations, although they have been used primarily for bias detection. Recently, Miao et al. (2018) have described sufficient conditions under which a pair of negative control exposure and outcome variables can be used to nonparametrically identify the average treatment effect (…
It is common to compare individualized treatment rules based on the value function, which is the expected potential outcome under the treatment rule. Although the value function is not point-identified when there is unmeasured confounding, it still defines a partial order among the treatment rules under Rosenbaum's sensitivity analysis model. We first consider how to compare two treatment rules with unmeasured confounding in the single-decision setting and then use this pairwise test to rank multiple treatment rules. We consider how to, among many treatment rules, select the best rules and sel…
Identification of treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding is a persistent problem in the social, biological, and medical sciences. The problem of unmeasured confounding in settings with multiple treatments is most common in statistical genetics and bioinformatics settings, where researchers have developed many successful statistical strategies without engaging deeply with the causal aspects of the problem. Recently there have been a number of attempts to bridge the gap between these statistical approaches and causal inference, but these attempts have either been shown to be…
Mediation analysis with unmeasured confounding between parallel mediators and outcome
School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University（北京大学数学科学学院）；The Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders, Chinese Institutes for Medical Research, Capital Medical University（首都医科大学中国医学研究院北京脑 disorder 研究所）
Data-driven methods for personalizing treatment assignment have garnered much attention from clinicians and researchers. Dynamic treatment regimes formalize this through a sequence of decision rules that map individual patient characteristics to a recommended treatment. Observational studies are commonly used for estimating dynamic treatment regimes due to the potentially prohibitive costs of conducting sequential multiple assignment randomized trials. However, estimating a dynamic treatment regime from observational data can lead to bias in the estimated regime due to unmeasured confounding. …
Instrumental variable methods are popular choices in combating unmeasured confounding to obtain less biased effect estimates. However, we demonstrate that alternative methods may give less biased estimates depending on the nature of unmeasured confounding. Treatment preferences of clusters (e.g., physician practices) are the most f6requently used instruments in instrumental variable analyses (IVA). These preference-based IVAs are usually conducted on data clustered by region, hospital/facility, or physician, where unmeasured confounding often occurs within or between clusters. We aim to quanti…
For settings with a binary treatment and a binary outcome, instrumental variables can be used to construct bounds on a causal treatment effect. With continuous outcomes, meaningful bounds are more difficult to obtain because the domain of the outcome is typically unrestricted. In this paper, we combine an instrumental variable and subjective assumptions in the context of an obser- vational cohort study of HIV-infected women to construct meaningful bounds on the initial-stage causal effect of antiretroviral therapy on CD4 count. The subjective assumptions are encoded in terms of the potential o…
In the absence of a randomized experiment, a key assumption for drawing causal inference about treatment effects is the ignorable treatment assignment. Violations of the ignorability assumption may lead to biased treatment effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis helps gauge how causal conclusions will be altered in response to the potential magnitude of departure from the ignorability assumption. However, sensitivity analysis approaches for unmeasured confounding in the context of multiple treatments and binary outcomes are scarce. We propose a flexible Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis approach…
It is often of interest in the health and social sciences to investigate the joint mediation effects of multiple post-exposure mediating variables. Identification of such joint mediation effects generally require no unmeasured confounding of the outcome with respect to the whole set of mediators. As the number of mediators under consideration grows, this key assumption is likely to be violated as it is often infeasible to intervene on any of the mediators. In this paper, we develop a simple two-step method of moments estimation procedure to assess mediation with multiple mediators simultaneous…
Proximal Mediation Analysis with Unmeasured Treatment-Induced Confounding
Center for Applied Statistics and School of Statistics, Renmin University of China（中国人民大学统计学院与应用统计中心）；Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison（威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校生物统计与医学信息学系）
Partial identification and unmeasured confounding with multiple treatments and multiple outcomes
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health（哈佛陈曾熙公共卫生学院）；Dana-Farber Cancer Institute（达纳法伯癌症研究所）；University of Florida（佛罗里达大学）；University of Central Florida（中佛罗里达大学）；University of California, Santa Barbara（加州大学圣塔芭芭拉分校）
Addressing the Influence of Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Studies with Time-to-Event Outcomes: A Semiparametric Sensitivity Analysis Approach
Identifying causal treatment (or exposure) effects in observational studies requires the data to satisfy the unconfoundedness assumption which is not testable using the observed data. With sensitivity analysis, one can determine how the conclusions might change if assumptions are violated to a certain degree. In this paper, we propose a new technique for sensitivity analysis applicable to clusters observational data with a normally distributed or binary outcome. The proposed methods aim to assess the robustness of estimated treatment effects in a single study as well as in multiple studies, i.…
In observational studies, identification of ATEs is generally achieved by assuming that the correct set of confounders has been measured and properly included in the relevant models. Because this assumption is both strong and untestable, a sensitivity analysis should be performed. Common approaches include modeling the bias directly or varying the propensity scores to probe the effects of a potential unmeasured confounder. In this paper, we take a novel approach whereby the sensitivity parameter is the "proportion of unmeasured confounding:" the proportion of units for whom the treatment is no…
Clinical studies sometimes encounter truncation by death, rendering outcomes undefined. Statistical analysis based solely on observed survivors may give biased results because the characteristics of survivors differ between treatment groups. By principal stratification, the survivor average causal effect was proposed as a causal estimand defined in always-survivors. However, this estimand is not identifiable when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment assignment and survival or outcome process. In this paper, we consider the comparison between an aggressive treatment and a conse…
An important concern in an observational study is whether or not there is unmeasured confounding, i.e., unmeasured ways in which the treatment and control groups differ before treatment that affect the outcome. We develop a test of whether there is unmeasured confounding when an instrumental variable (IV) is available. An IV is a variable that is independent of the unmeasured confounding and encourages a subject to take one treatment level vs. another, while having no effect on the outcome beyond its encouragement of a certain treatment level. We show what types of unmeasured confounding can b…
Bayesian causal inference offers a principled approach to policy evaluation of proposed interventions on mediators or time-varying exposures. We outline a general approach to the estimation of causal quantities for settings with time-varying confounding, such as exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounders. We further extend this approach to propose two Bayesian data fusion (BDF) methods for unmeasured confounding. Using informative priors on quantities relating to the confounding bias parameters, our methods incorporate data from an external source where the confounder is measured in order t…
In this paper, we discuss causal inference on the efficacy of a treatment or medication on a time-to-event outcome with competing risks. Although the treatment group can be randomized, there can be confoundings between the compliance and the outcome. Unmeasured confoundings may exist even after adjustment for measured co- variates. Instrumental variable (IV) methods are commonly used to yield consistent estimations of causal parameters in the presence of unmeasured confoundings. Based on a semi-parametric additive hazard model for the subdistribution hazard, we pro- pose an instrumental variab…
Consider sensitivity analysis for estimating average treatment effects under unmeasured confounding, assumed to satisfy a marginal sensitivity model. At the population level, we provide new representations for the sharp population bounds and doubly robust estimating functions, recently derived by Dorn, Guo, and Kallus. We also derive new, relaxed population bounds, depending on weighted linear outcome quantile regression. At the sample level, we develop new methods and theory for obtaining not only doubly robust point estimators for the relaxed population bounds with respect to misspecificatio…
Random-effects meta-analyses of observational studies can produce biased estimates if the synthesized studies are subject to unmeasured confounding. We propose sensitivity analyses quantifying the extent to which unmeasured confounding of specified magnitude could reduce to below a certain threshold the proportion of true effect sizes that are scientifically meaningful. We also develop converse methods to estimate the strength of confounding capable of reducing the proportion of scientifically meaningful true effects to below a chosen threshold. These methods apply when a "bias factor" is assu…
The strength of evidence provided by epidemiological and observational studies is inherently limited by the potential for unmeasured confounding. Researchers should present a quantified sensitivity to unmeasured confounding analysis that is contextualized by the study's observed covariates. VanderWeele and Ding's E-value provides an easily calculated metric for the magnitude of the hypothetical unmeasured confounding required to render the study's result inconclusive. We propose the Observed Covariate E-value to contextualize the sensitivity analysis' hypothetical E-value within the actual imp…
Inferring the causal effect of a non-randomly assigned exposure on an outcome requires adjusting for common causes of the exposure and outcome to avoid biased conclusions. Notwithstanding the efforts investigators routinely make to measure and adjust for such common causes (or confounders), some confounders typically remain unmeasured, raising the prospect of biased inference in observational studies. Therefore, it is crucial that investigators can practically assess their substantive conclusions' relative (in)sensitivity to potential unmeasured confounding. In this article, we propose a sensi…
We present a method for assessing the sensitivity of the true causal effect to unmeasured confounding. The method requires the analyst to set two intuitive parameters. Otherwise, the method is assumption-free. The method returns an interval that contains the true causal effect, and whose bounds are arbitrarily sharp, i.e. practically attainable. We show experimentally that our bounds can be tighter than those obtained by the method of Ding and VanderWeele (2016a) which, moreover, requires to set one more parameter than our method. Finally, we extend our method to bound the natural direct and i…
