Journal of the SFdS最新文献

Targets of inference that establish causality are phrased in terms of counterfactual responses to interventions. These potential outcomes operationalize cause effect relationships by means of comparisons of cases and controls in hypothetical randomized controlled experiments. In many applied settings, data on such experiments is not directly available, necessitating assumptions linking the counterfactual target of inference with the factual observed data distribution. This link is provided by causal models. Originally defined on potential outcomes directly (Rubin, 1976), causal models have been extended to longitudinal settings (Robins, 1986), and reformulated as graphical models (Spirtes et al., 2001; Pearl, 2009). In settings where common causes of all observed variables are themselves observed, many causal inference targets are identified via variations of the expression referred to in the literature as the g-formula (Robins, 1986), the manipulated distribution (Spirtes et al., 2001), or the truncated factorization (Pearl, 2009). In settings where hidden variables are present, identification results become considerably more complicated. In this manuscript, we review identification theory in causal models with hidden variables for common targets that arise in causal inference applications, including causal effects, direct, indirect, and path-specific effects, and outcomes of dynamic treatment regimes. We will describe a simple formulation of this theory (Tian and Pearl, 2002; Shpitser and Pearl, 2006b,a; Tian, 2008; Shpitser, 2013) in terms of causal graphical models, and the fixing operator, a statistical analogue of the intervention operation (Richardson et al., 2017).

Preventive vaccines are an effective public health intervention for reducing the burden of infectious diseases, but have yet to be developed for several major infectious diseases. Vaccine sieve analysis studies whether and how the efficacy of a vaccine varies with the genetics of the infectious pathogen, which may help guide future vaccine development and deployment. A standard statistical approach to sieve analysis compares the effect of the vaccine to prevent infection and disease caused by pathogen types defined dichotomously as genetically near or far from a reference pathogen strain inside the vaccine construct. For example, near may be defined by amino acid identity at all amino acid positions considered in a multiple alignment and far defined by at least one amino acid difference. An alternative approach is to study the efficacy of the vaccine as a function of genetic distance from a pathogen to a reference vaccine strain where the distance cumulates over the set of amino acid positions. We propose a nonparametric method for estimating and testing the trend in the effect of a vaccine across genetic distance. We illustrate the operating characteristics of the estimator via simulation and apply the method to a recent preventive malaria vaccine efficacy trial.

We compare two major approaches to variable selection in clustering: model selection and regularization. Based on previous results, we select the method of Maugis et al. (2009b), which modified the method of Raftery and Dean (2006), as a current state of the art model selection method. We select the method of Witten and Tibshirani (2010) as a current state of the art regularization method. We compared the methods by simulation in terms of their accuracy in both classification and variable selection. In the first simulation experiment all the variables were conditionally independent given cluster membership. We found that variable selection (of either kind) yielded substantial gains in classification accuracy when the clusters were well separated, but few gains when the clusters were close together. We found that the two variable selection methods had comparable classification accuracy, but that the model selection approach had substantially better accuracy in selecting variables. In our second simulation experiment, there were correlations among the variables given the cluster memberships. We found that the model selection approach was substantially more accurate in terms of both classification and variable selection than the regularization approach, and that both gave more accurate classifications than K-means without variable selection. But the model selection approach is not available in a very high dimension context.