Instrumental variables as bias amplifiers with general outcome and confounding

被引:53
作者
Ding, P. [1 ]
Vanderweele, T. J. [2 ]
Robins, J. M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Stat, 425 Evans Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[2] Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Causal inference; Directed acyclic graph; Interaction; Monotonicity; Potential outcome; PROPENSITY SCORE METHODS; CAUSAL; DISTRIBUTIONS; COLLAPSIBILITY; AMPLIFICATION; ASSOCIATION; BALANCE; BALLOON; DESIGN; MODELS;
D O I
10.1093/biomet/asx009
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Drawing causal inference with observational studies is the central pillar of many disciplines. One sufficient condition for identifying the causal effect is that the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded conditional on the observed covariates. It is often believed that the more covariates we condition on, the more plausible this unconfoundedness assumption is. This belief has had a huge impact on practical causal inference, suggesting that we should adjust for all pretreatment covariates. However, when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment and outcome, estimators adjusting for some pretreatment covariate might have greater bias than estimators that do not adjust for this covariate. This kind of covariate is called a bias amplifier, and includes instrumental variables that are independent of the confounder and affect the outcome only through the treatment. Previously, theoretical results for this phenomenon have been established only for linear models. We fill this gap in the literature by providing a general theory, showing that this phenomenon happens under a wide class of models satisfying certain monotonicity assumptions.
引用
收藏
页码:291 / 302
页数:12
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Propensity Score Methods and Unobserved Covariate Imbalance: Comments on "Squeezing the Balloon" [J].
Ali, M. Sanni ;
Groenwold, Rolf H. H. ;
Klungel, Olaf H. .
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2014, 49 (03) :1074-1082
[2]  
Bhattacharya J., 2012, International Journal of Statistics Economics, V9, P107
[3]   Confounding Control in Healthcare Database Research Challenges and Potential Approaches [J].
Brookhart, M. Alan ;
Sturmer, Til ;
Glynn, Robert J. ;
Rassen, Jeremy ;
Schneeweiss, Sebastian .
MEDICAL CARE, 2010, 48 (06) :S114-S120
[4]   Squeezing the Balloon: Propensity Scores and Unmeasured Covariate Balance [J].
Brooks, John M. ;
Ohsfeldt, Robert L. .
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2013, 48 (04) :1487-1507
[5]   THE PLANNING OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES OF HUMAN-POPULATIONS [J].
COCHRAN, WG .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-GENERAL, 1965, 128 (02) :234-266
[6]   A general condition for avoiding effect reversal after marginalization [J].
Cox, DR ;
Wermuth, N .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 2003, 65 :937-941
[7]  
D'Agostino RB, 1998, STAT MED, V17, P2265, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::AID-SIM918>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-B
[9]   To Adjust or Not to Adjust? Sensitivity Analysis of M-Bias and Butterfly-Bias [J].
Ding, Peng ;
Miratrix, Luke W. .
JOURNAL OF CAUSAL INFERENCE, 2015, 3 (01) :41-57
[10]  
DORN HF, 1953, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V43, P677