An official website of the United States government
Machine learning (ML) methods for causal inference have gained popularity due to their flexibility to predict the outcome model and the propensity score. In this article, we provide a within-group approach for ML-based causal inference methods in order to robustly estimate average treatment effects in multilevel studies when there is cluster-level unmeasured confounding. We focus on one particular ML-based causal inference method based on the targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) with an ensemble learner called SuperLearner. Through our simulation studies, we observe that training TMLE within groups of similar clusters helps remove bias from cluster-level unmeasured confounders. Also, using within-group propensity scores estimated from fixed effects logistic regression increases the robustness of the proposed within-group TMLE method. Even if the propensity scores are partially misspecified, the within-group TMLE still produces robust ATE estimates due to double robustness with flexible modeling, unlike parametric-based inverse propensity weighting methods. We demonstrate our proposed methods and conduct sensitivity analyses against the number of groups and individual-level unmeasured confounding to evaluate the effect of taking an eighth-grade algebra course on math achievement in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.
more »
« less
Propensity Score Weighting for Causal Inference with Clustered Data
Abstract Propensity score weighting is a tool for causal inference to adjust for measured confounders in observational studies. In practice, data often present complex structures, such as clustering, which make propensity score modeling and estimation challenging. In addition, for clustered data, there may be unmeasured cluster-level covariates that are related to both the treatment assignment and outcome. When such unmeasured cluster-specific confounders exist and are omitted in the propensity score model, the subsequent propensity score adjustment may be biased. In this article, we propose a calibration technique for propensity score estimation under the latent ignorable treatment assignment mechanism, i. e., the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded given the observed covariates and the latent cluster-specific confounders. We impose novel balance constraints which imply exact balance of the observed confounders and the unobserved cluster-level confounders between the treatment groups. We show that the proposed calibrated propensity score weighting estimator is doubly robust in that it is consistent for the average treatment effect if either the propensity score model is correctly specified or the outcome follows a linear mixed effects model. Moreover, the proposed weighting method can be combined with sampling weights for an integrated solution to handle confounding and sampling designs for causal inference with clustered survey data. In simulation studies, we show that the proposed estimator is superior to other competitors. We estimate the effect of School Body Mass Index Screening on prevalence of overweight and obesity for elementary schools in Pennsylvania.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1811245
- PAR ID:
- 10089543
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Causal Inference
- Volume:
- 6
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2193-3685
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This study investigates appropriate estimation of estimator variability in the context of causal mediation analysis that employs propensity score‐based weighting. Such an analysis decomposes the total effect of a treatment on the outcome into an indirect effect transmitted through a focal mediator and a direct effect bypassing the mediator. Ratio‐of‐mediator‐probability weighting estimates these causal effects by adjusting for the confounding impact of a large number of pretreatment covariates through propensity score‐based weighting. In step 1, a propensity score model is estimated. In step 2, the causal effects of interest are estimated using weights derived from the prior step's regression coefficient estimates. Statistical inferences obtained from this 2‐step estimation procedure are potentially problematic if the estimated standard errors of the causal effect estimates do not reflect the sampling uncertainty in the estimation of the weights. This study extends to ratio‐of‐mediator‐probability weighting analysis a solution to the 2‐step estimation problem by stacking the score functions from both steps. We derive the asymptotic variance‐covariance matrix for the indirect effect and direct effect 2‐step estimators, provide simulation results, and illustrate with an application study. Our simulation results indicate that the sampling uncertainty in the estimated weights should not be ignored. The standard error estimation using the stacking procedure offers a viable alternative to bootstrap standard error estimation. We discuss broad implications of this approach for causal analysis involving propensity score‐based weighting.more » « less
-
The odds ratio is a common measure to assess the association between abinary predictor variable and a binary outcome. In epidemiology, the outcome is often the dis- ease status, and the predictor of interest is a suspected risk factor for the disease. The purpose of the study is an attempt to establish a causal association between exposure and disease. If the object of a study is the estimation of a marginal odds ratio, defined as the ratio of the odds that would be observed in a population if everyone were exposed versus the odds in the same population if no one were exposed, methods such as the Mantel–Haenszel estimator are commonly used. When it is necessary to adjust for many confounders and/or continuous confounders, this approach results in a biased and incon- sistent estimator, including matching and stratification by the propensity score. An alter- native to matching is inverse probability weighting by the propensity score. The resulting estimator is consistent, provided the propensity score model is correct and adjusts for all confounders.more » « less
-
Abstract Calibration weighting has been widely used to correct selection biases in nonprobability sampling, missing data and causal inference. The main idea is to calibrate the biased sample to the benchmark by adjusting the subject weights. However, hard calibration can produce enormous weights when an exact calibration is enforced on a large set of extraneous covariates. This article proposes a soft calibration scheme, where the outcome and the selection indicator follow mixed-effect models. The scheme imposes an exact calibration on the fixed effects and an approximate calibration on the random effects. On the one hand, our soft calibration has an intrinsic connection with best linear unbiased prediction, which results in a more efficient estimation compared to hard calibration. On the other hand, soft calibration weighting estimation can be envisioned as penalized propensity score weight estimation, with the penalty term motivated by the mixed-effect structure. The asymptotic distribution and a valid variance estimator are derived for soft calibration. We demonstrate the superiority of the proposed estimator over other competitors in simulation studies and using a real-world data application on the effect of BMI screening on childhood obesity.more » « less
-
Abstract Bias in causal comparisons has a correspondence with distributional imbalance of covariates between treatment groups. Weighting strategies such as inverse propensity score weighting attempt to mitigate bias by either modeling the treatment assignment mechanism or balancing specified covariate moments. This article introduces a new weighting method, called energy balancing, which instead aims to balance weighted covariate distributions. By directly targeting distributional imbalance, the proposed weighting strategy can be flexibly utilized in a wide variety of causal analyses without the need for careful model or moment specification. Our energy balancing weights (EBW) approach has several advantages over existing weighting techniques. First, it offers a model-free and robust approach for obtaining covariate balance that does not require tuning parameters, obviating the need for modeling decisions of secondary nature to the scientific question at hand. Second, since this approach is based on a genuine measure of distributional balance, it provides a means for assessing the balance induced by a given set of weights for a given dataset. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this EBW approach in a suite of simulation experiments, and in studies on the safety of right heart catheterization and on three additional studies using electronic health record data.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2017-0027
