时间逻辑是否能改善有向无环图(dag)的规范?

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education Pub Date : 2021-06-02 DOI:10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311
G. Ellison
{"title":"时间逻辑是否能改善有向无环图(dag)的规范?","authors":"G. Ellison","doi":"10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Temporality-driven covariate classification had limited impact on: the specification of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) by 85 novice analysts (medical undergraduates); or the risk of bias in DAG-informed multivariable models designed to generate causal inference from observational data. Only 71 students (83.5%) managed to complete the “Temporality-driven Covariate Classification” task, and fewer still completed the “DAG Specification” task (77.6%) or both tasks in succession (68.2%). Most students who completed the first task misclassified at least one covariate (84.5%), and misclassification rates were even higher among students who specified a DAG (92.4%). Nonetheless, across the 512 and 517 covariates considered by each of these tasks, “confounders” were far less likely to be misclassified (11/252, 4.4% and 8/261, 3.1%) than “mediators” (70/123, 56.9% and 56/115, 48.7%) or “competing exposures” (93/137, 67.9% and 86/138, 62.3%), respectively. Since estimates of total causal effects are biased in multivariable models that: fail to adjust for “confounders”; or adjust for “mediators” (or “consequences of the outcome”) misclassified as “confounders” or “competing exposures,” a substantial proportion of any models informed by the present study’s DAGs would have generated biased estimates of total causal effects (50/66, 76.8%); and this would have only been slightly lower for models informed by temporality-driven covariate classification alone (47/71, 66.2%). Supplementary materials for this article are available online.","PeriodicalId":34851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education","volume":"29 1","pages":"202 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Might Temporal Logic Improve the Specification of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)?\",\"authors\":\"G. Ellison\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Temporality-driven covariate classification had limited impact on: the specification of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) by 85 novice analysts (medical undergraduates); or the risk of bias in DAG-informed multivariable models designed to generate causal inference from observational data. Only 71 students (83.5%) managed to complete the “Temporality-driven Covariate Classification” task, and fewer still completed the “DAG Specification” task (77.6%) or both tasks in succession (68.2%). Most students who completed the first task misclassified at least one covariate (84.5%), and misclassification rates were even higher among students who specified a DAG (92.4%). Nonetheless, across the 512 and 517 covariates considered by each of these tasks, “confounders” were far less likely to be misclassified (11/252, 4.4% and 8/261, 3.1%) than “mediators” (70/123, 56.9% and 56/115, 48.7%) or “competing exposures” (93/137, 67.9% and 86/138, 62.3%), respectively. Since estimates of total causal effects are biased in multivariable models that: fail to adjust for “confounders”; or adjust for “mediators” (or “consequences of the outcome”) misclassified as “confounders” or “competing exposures,” a substantial proportion of any models informed by the present study’s DAGs would have generated biased estimates of total causal effects (50/66, 76.8%); and this would have only been slightly lower for models informed by temporality-driven covariate classification alone (47/71, 66.2%). Supplementary materials for this article are available online.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"202 - 213\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要时间驱动的协变量分类对85名新手分析师(医学本科生)对有向无环图(DAG)的规范影响有限;或DAG多变量模型中的偏差风险,该模型旨在从观测数据中产生因果推断。只有71名学生(83.5%)成功完成了“时间驱动的协变量分类”任务,完成“DAG规范”任务(77.6%)或连续完成两项任务(68.2%)的学生更少。大多数完成第一项任务的学生至少对一个协变量进行了错误分类(84.5%),指定DAG的学生的错误分类率更高(92.4%)。尽管如此,在每项任务考虑的512和517个协变量中,“混杂因素”被错误分类的可能性(11/252,4.4%和8/261,3.1%)远低于“中介因素”(70/123,56.9%和56/115,48.7%)或“竞争暴露”(93/137,67.9%和86/138,62.3%)。由于在多变量模型中对总因果效应的估计是有偏差的,这些模型:未能调整“混杂因素”;或根据被错误归类为“混杂因素”或“竞争暴露”的“媒介”(或“结果的后果”)进行调整,本研究DAG所提供的任何模型中,很大一部分都会对总因果效应产生有偏差的估计(50/66,76.8%);对于仅由时间驱动的协变量分类提供信息的模型,这一比例仅略低(47/71,66.2%)。本文的补充材料可在线获取。
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
Might Temporal Logic Improve the Specification of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)?
Abstract Temporality-driven covariate classification had limited impact on: the specification of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) by 85 novice analysts (medical undergraduates); or the risk of bias in DAG-informed multivariable models designed to generate causal inference from observational data. Only 71 students (83.5%) managed to complete the “Temporality-driven Covariate Classification” task, and fewer still completed the “DAG Specification” task (77.6%) or both tasks in succession (68.2%). Most students who completed the first task misclassified at least one covariate (84.5%), and misclassification rates were even higher among students who specified a DAG (92.4%). Nonetheless, across the 512 and 517 covariates considered by each of these tasks, “confounders” were far less likely to be misclassified (11/252, 4.4% and 8/261, 3.1%) than “mediators” (70/123, 56.9% and 56/115, 48.7%) or “competing exposures” (93/137, 67.9% and 86/138, 62.3%), respectively. Since estimates of total causal effects are biased in multivariable models that: fail to adjust for “confounders”; or adjust for “mediators” (or “consequences of the outcome”) misclassified as “confounders” or “competing exposures,” a substantial proportion of any models informed by the present study’s DAGs would have generated biased estimates of total causal effects (50/66, 76.8%); and this would have only been slightly lower for models informed by temporality-driven covariate classification alone (47/71, 66.2%). Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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
Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education
Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
35.30%
发文量
52
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating Sensitive Issues in Class Through Randomized Response Polling Teaching Students to Read COVID-19 Journal Articles in Statistics Courses Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education 2023 Associate Editors Interviews of Notable Statistics and Data Science Educators Coding Code: Qualitative Methods for Investigating Data Science Skills
×
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