Search for: All records

Abstract Weighting methods are popular tools for estimating causal effects, and assessing their robustness under unobserved confounding is important in practice. Current approaches to sensitivity analyses rely on bounding a worst-case error from omitting a confounder. In this paper, we introduce a new sensitivity model called the variance-based sensitivity model, which instead bounds the distributional differences that arise in the weights from omitting a confounder. The variance-based sensitivity model can be parameterized by an R2 parameter that is both standardized and bounded. We demonstrate, both empirically and theoretically, that the variance-based sensitivity model provides improvements on the stability of the sensitivity analysis procedure over existing methods. We show that by moving away from worst-case bounds, we are able to obtain more interpretable and informative bounds. We illustrate our proposed approach on a study examining blood mercury levels using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 

ABSTRACT Disparities in health or well‐being experienced by minority groups can be difficult to study using the traditional exposure‐outcome paradigm in causal inference, since potential outcomes in variables such as race or sexual minority status are challenging to interpret. Causal decomposition analysis addresses this gap by positing causal effects on disparities under interventions to other intervenable exposures that may play a mediating role in the disparity. While invoking weaker assumptions than causal mediation approaches, decomposition analyses are often conducted in observational settings and require uncheckable assumptions that eliminate unmeasured confounders. Leveraging the marginal sensitivity model, we develop a sensitivity analysis for weighted causal decomposition estimators and use the percentile bootstrap to construct valid confidence intervals for causal effects on disparities. We also propose a two‐parameter reformulation that enhances interpretability and facilitates an intuitive understanding of the plausibility of unmeasured confounders and their effects. We illustrate our framework on a study examining the effect of parental support on disparities in suicidal ideation among sexual minority youth. We find that the effect is small and sensitive to unmeasured confounding, suggesting that further screening studies are needed to identify mitigating interventions in this vulnerable population. 

Abstract It is common to conduct causal inference in matched observational studies by proceeding as though treatment assignments within matched sets are assigned uniformly at random and using this distribution as the basis for inference. This approach ignores observed discrepancies in matched sets that may be consequential for the distribution of treatment, which are succinctly captured by within-set differences in the propensity score. We address this problem via covariate-adaptive randomization inference, which modifies the permutation probabilities to vary with estimated propensity score discrepancies and avoids requirements to exclude matched pairs or model an outcome variable. We show that the test achieves type I error control arbitrarily close to the nominal level when large samples are available for propensity score estimation. We characterize the large-sample behaviour of the new randomization test for a difference-in-means estimator of a constant additive effect. We also show that existing methods of sensitivity analysis generalize effectively to covariate-adaptive randomization inference. Finally, we evaluate the empirical value of combining matching and covariate-adaptive randomization procedures using simulations and analyses of genetic damage among welders and right-heart catheterization in surgical patients. 

Abstract Matching in observational studies faces complications when units enroll in treatment on a rolling basis. While each treated unit has a specific time of entry into the study, control units each have many possible comparison, or “pseudo-treatment,” times. Valid inference must account for correlations between repeated measures for a single unit, and researchers must decide how flexibly to match across time and units. We provide three important innovations. First, we introduce a new matched design, GroupMatch with instance replacement, allowing maximum flexibility in control selection. This new design searches over all possible comparison times for each treated-control pairing and is more amenable to analysis than past methods. Second, we propose a block bootstrap approach for inference in matched designs with rolling enrollment and demonstrate that it accounts properly for complex correlations across matched sets in our new design and several other contexts. Third, we develop a falsification test to detect violations of the timepoint agnosticism assumption, which is needed to permit flexible matching across time. We demonstrate the practical value of these tools via simulations and a case study of the impact of short-term injuries on batting performance in major league baseball.