在因果效应估算中综合学科专业知识进行变量选择:案例研究。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001758
Julia Debertin, Javier A Jurado Vélez, Laura Corlin, Bertha Hidalgo, Eleanor J Murray
{"title":"在因果效应估算中综合学科专业知识进行变量选择:案例研究。","authors":"Julia Debertin, Javier A Jurado Vélez, Laura Corlin, Bertha Hidalgo, Eleanor J Murray","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Causal graphs are an important tool for covariate selection but there is limited applied research on how best to create them. Here, we used data from the Coronary Drug Project trial to assess a range of approaches to directed acyclic graph (DAG) creation. We focused on the effect of adherence on mortality in the placebo arm, since the true causal effect is believed with a high degree of certainty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created DAGs for the effect of placebo adherence on mortality using different approaches for identifying variables and links to include or exclude. For each DAG, we identified minimal adjustment sets of covariates for estimating our causal effect of interest and applied these to analyses of the Coronary Drug Project data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When we used only baseline covariate values to estimate the cumulative effect of placebo adherence on mortality, all adjustment sets performed similarly. The specific choice of covariates had minimal effect on these (biased) point estimates, but including nonconfounding prognostic factors resulted in smaller variance estimates. When we additionally adjusted for time-varying covariates of adherence using inverse probability weighting, covariates identified from the DAG created by focusing on prognostic factors performed best.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Theoretical advice on covariate selection suggests that including prognostic factors that are not exposure predictors can reduce variance without increasing bias. In contrast, for exposure predictors that are not prognostic factors, inclusion may result in less bias control. Our results empirically confirm this advice. We recommend that hand-creating DAGs begin with the identification of all potential outcome prognostic factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309331/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Synthesizing Subject-matter Expertise for Variable Selection in Causal Effect Estimation: A Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Debertin, Javier A Jurado Vélez, Laura Corlin, Bertha Hidalgo, Eleanor J Murray\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Causal graphs are an important tool for covariate selection but there is limited applied research on how best to create them. Here, we used data from the Coronary Drug Project trial to assess a range of approaches to directed acyclic graph (DAG) creation. We focused on the effect of adherence on mortality in the placebo arm, since the true causal effect is believed with a high degree of certainty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created DAGs for the effect of placebo adherence on mortality using different approaches for identifying variables and links to include or exclude. For each DAG, we identified minimal adjustment sets of covariates for estimating our causal effect of interest and applied these to analyses of the Coronary Drug Project data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When we used only baseline covariate values to estimate the cumulative effect of placebo adherence on mortality, all adjustment sets performed similarly. The specific choice of covariates had minimal effect on these (biased) point estimates, but including nonconfounding prognostic factors resulted in smaller variance estimates. When we additionally adjusted for time-varying covariates of adherence using inverse probability weighting, covariates identified from the DAG created by focusing on prognostic factors performed best.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Theoretical advice on covariate selection suggests that including prognostic factors that are not exposure predictors can reduce variance without increasing bias. In contrast, for exposure predictors that are not prognostic factors, inclusion may result in less bias control. Our results empirically confirm this advice. We recommend that hand-creating DAGs begin with the identification of all potential outcome prognostic factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309331/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001758\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001758","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:因果图是选择协变量的重要工具,但关于如何最好地创建因果图的应用研究却很有限。在此,我们利用冠心病药物项目(CDP)试验的数据评估了一系列创建有向无环图(DAG)的方法。我们重点研究了坚持用药对安慰剂组死亡率的影响,因为我们相信真正的因果效应具有很高的确定性:我们使用不同的方法来确定变量和链接的包含或排除,从而创建了安慰剂依从性对死亡率影响的 DAG。对于每个 DAG,我们都确定了用于估计我们感兴趣的因果效应的协变量最小调整集,并将其应用于 CDP 数据的分析:结果:当我们仅使用基线协变量值来估算安慰剂依从性对死亡率的累积效应时,所有调整集的表现相似。协变量的具体选择对这些(有偏差的)点估算值的影响很小,但包括非混杂预后因素会导致方差估算值较小。当我们使用反概率加权法对随时间变化的依从性协变量进行额外调整时,通过关注预后因素创建的 DAG 所确定的协变量表现最佳:关于协变量选择的理论建议表明,纳入非暴露预测因素的预后因素可以减少方差,而不会增加偏差。相反,对于不属于预后因素的暴露预测因子,纳入后可能会减少偏差控制。我们的研究结果从经验上证实了这一建议。我们建议在手工创建 DAG 时首先识别所有潜在的结果预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Synthesizing Subject-matter Expertise for Variable Selection in Causal Effect Estimation: A Case Study.

Background: Causal graphs are an important tool for covariate selection but there is limited applied research on how best to create them. Here, we used data from the Coronary Drug Project trial to assess a range of approaches to directed acyclic graph (DAG) creation. We focused on the effect of adherence on mortality in the placebo arm, since the true causal effect is believed with a high degree of certainty.

Methods: We created DAGs for the effect of placebo adherence on mortality using different approaches for identifying variables and links to include or exclude. For each DAG, we identified minimal adjustment sets of covariates for estimating our causal effect of interest and applied these to analyses of the Coronary Drug Project data.

Results: When we used only baseline covariate values to estimate the cumulative effect of placebo adherence on mortality, all adjustment sets performed similarly. The specific choice of covariates had minimal effect on these (biased) point estimates, but including nonconfounding prognostic factors resulted in smaller variance estimates. When we additionally adjusted for time-varying covariates of adherence using inverse probability weighting, covariates identified from the DAG created by focusing on prognostic factors performed best.

Conclusion: Theoretical advice on covariate selection suggests that including prognostic factors that are not exposure predictors can reduce variance without increasing bias. In contrast, for exposure predictors that are not prognostic factors, inclusion may result in less bias control. Our results empirically confirm this advice. We recommend that hand-creating DAGs begin with the identification of all potential outcome prognostic factors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
期刊最新文献
Maternal health during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.: an interrupted time series analysis. Interpreting Violations of Falsification Tests in the Context of Multiple Proposed Instrumental Variables. Outcome of Pregnancy Oral Glucose Tolerance Test and Preterm Birth. Synthesizing Subject-matter Expertise for Variable Selection in Causal Effect Estimation: A Case Study. Ambient Air Pollution Exposures and Child Executive Function: A US Multicohort Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1