Showing 1–50 of 56 results for author: Vansteelandt, S

Causal machine learning for high-dimensional mediation analysis using interventional effects mapped to a target trial

Authors: Tong Chen, Stijn Vansteelandt, David Burgner, Toby Mansell, Margarita Moreno-Betancur

Abstract: Causal mediation analysis examines causal pathways linking exposures to disease. The estimation of interventional effects, which are mediation estimands that overcome certain identifiability problems of natural effects, has been advanced through causal machine learning methods, particularly for high-dimensional mediators. Recently, it has been proposed interventional effects can be defined in each… ▽ More Causal mediation analysis examines causal pathways linking exposures to disease. The estimation of interventional effects, which are mediation estimands that overcome certain identifiability problems of natural effects, has been advanced through causal machine learning methods, particularly for high-dimensional mediators. Recently, it has been proposed interventional effects can be defined in each study by mapping to a target trial assessing specific hypothetical mediator interventions. This provides an appealing framework to directly address real-world research questions about the extent to which such interventions might mitigate an increased disease risk in the exposed. However, existing estimators for interventional effects mapped to a target trial rely on singly-robust parametric approaches, limiting their applicability in high-dimensional settings. Building upon recent developments in causal machine learning for interventional effects, we address this gap by developing causal machine learning estimators for three interventional effect estimands, defined by target trials assessing hypothetical interventions inducing distinct shifts in joint mediator distributions. These estimands are motivated by a case study within the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, used for illustration, which assessed how intervening on high inflammatory burden and other non-inflammatory adverse metabolomic markers might mitigate the adverse causal effect of overweight or obesity on high blood pressure in adolescence. We develop one-step and (partial) targeted minimum loss-based estimators based on efficient influence functions of those estimands, demonstrating they are root-n consistent, efficient, and multiply robust under certain conditions. △ Less

Submitted 22 April, 2025; originally announced April 2025.

Analyzing multi-center randomized trials with covariate adjustment while accounting for clustering

Authors: Muluneh Alene, Stijn Vansteelandt, Kelly Van Lancker

Abstract: Augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) and G-computation with canonical generalized linear models have become increasingly popular for estimating the average treatment effect in randomized experiments. These estimators leverage outcome prediction models to adjust for imbalances in baseline covariates across treatment arms, improving statistical power compared to unadjusted analyses, while… ▽ More Augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) and G-computation with canonical generalized linear models have become increasingly popular for estimating the average treatment effect in randomized experiments. These estimators leverage outcome prediction models to adjust for imbalances in baseline covariates across treatment arms, improving statistical power compared to unadjusted analyses, while maintaining control over Type I error rates, even when the models are misspecified. Practical application of such estimators often overlooks the clustering present in multi-center clinical trials. Even when prediction models account for center effects, this neglect can degrade the coverage of confidence intervals, reduce the efficiency of the estimators, and complicate the interpretation of the corresponding estimands. These issues are particularly pronounced for estimators of counterfactual means, though less severe for those of the average treatment effect, as demonstrated through Monte Carlo simulations and supported by theoretical insights. To address these challenges, we develop efficient estimators of counterfactual means and the average treatment effect in a random center. These extract information from baseline covariates by relying on outcome prediction models, but remain unbiased in large samples when these models are misspecified. We also introduce an accompanying inference framework inspired by random-effects meta-analysis and relevant for settings where data from many small centers are being analyzed. Adjusting for center effects yields substantial gains in efficiency, especially when treatment effect heterogeneity across centers is large. Monte Carlo simulations and application to the WASH Benefits Bangladesh study demonstrate adequate performance of the proposed methods. △ Less

Submitted 17 April, 2025; originally announced April 2025.

Integration of aggregated data in causally interpretable meta-analysis by inverse weighting

Authors: Tat-Thang Vo, Tran Trong Khoi Le, Sivem Afach, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Obtaining causally interpretable meta-analysis results is challenging when there are differences in the distribution of effect modifiers between eligible trials. To overcome this, recent work on transportability methods has considered standardizing results of individual studies over the case-mix of a target population, prior to pooling them as in a classical random-effect meta-analysis. One practi… ▽ More Obtaining causally interpretable meta-analysis results is challenging when there are differences in the distribution of effect modifiers between eligible trials. To overcome this, recent work on transportability methods has considered standardizing results of individual studies over the case-mix of a target population, prior to pooling them as in a classical random-effect meta-analysis. One practical challenge, however, is that case-mix standardization often requires individual participant data (IPD) on outcome, treatments and case-mix characteristics to be fully accessible in every eligible study, along with IPD case-mix characteristics for a random sample from the target population. In this paper, we aim to develop novel strategies to integrate aggregated-level data from eligible trials with non-accessible IPD into a causal meta-analysis, by extending moment-based methods frequently used for population-adjusted indirect comparison in health technology assessment. Since valid inference for these moment-based methods by M-estimation theory requires additional aggregated data that are often unavailable in practice, computational methods to address this concern are also developed. We assess the finite-sample performance of the proposed approaches by simulated data, and then apply these on real-world clinical data to investigate the effectiveness of risankizumab versus ustekinumab among patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. △ Less

Submitted 7 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Causal machine learning for heterogeneous treatment effects in the presence of missing outcome data

Authors: Matthew Pryce, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Ruth H. Keogh, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: When estimating heterogeneous treatment effects, missing outcome data can complicate treatment effect estimation, causing certain subgroups of the population to be poorly represented. In this work, we discuss this commonly overlooked problem and consider the impact that missing at random (MAR) outcome data has on causal machine learning estimators for the conditional average treatment effect (CATE… ▽ More When estimating heterogeneous treatment effects, missing outcome data can complicate treatment effect estimation, causing certain subgroups of the population to be poorly represented. In this work, we discuss this commonly overlooked problem and consider the impact that missing at random (MAR) outcome data has on causal machine learning estimators for the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). We propose two de-biased machine learning estimators for the CATE, the mDR-learner and mEP-learner, which address the issue of under-representation by integrating inverse probability of censoring weights into the DR-learner and EP-learner respectively. We show that under reasonable conditions, these estimators are oracle efficient, and illustrate their favorable performance through simulated data settings, comparing them to existing CATE estimators, including comparison to estimators which use common missing data techniques. We present an example of their application using the GBSG2 trial, exploring treatment effect heterogeneity when comparing hormonal therapies to non-hormonal therapies among breast cancer patients post surgery, and offer guidance on the decisions a practitioner must make when implementing these estimators. △ Less

Submitted 13 April, 2025; v1 submitted 27 December, 2024; originally announced December 2024.

Comments: 34 pages, 6 figures, 4 tables

Debiasing Synthetic Data Generated by Deep Generative Models

Authors: Alexander Decruyenaere, Heidelinde Dehaene, Paloma Rabaey, Christiaan Polet, Johan Decruyenaere, Thomas Demeester, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: While synthetic data hold great promise for privacy protection, their statistical analysis poses significant challenges that necessitate innovative solutions. The use of deep generative models (DGMs) for synthetic data generation is known to induce considerable bias and imprecision into synthetic data analyses, compromising their inferential utility as opposed to original data analyses. This bias… ▽ More While synthetic data hold great promise for privacy protection, their statistical analysis poses significant challenges that necessitate innovative solutions. The use of deep generative models (DGMs) for synthetic data generation is known to induce considerable bias and imprecision into synthetic data analyses, compromising their inferential utility as opposed to original data analyses. This bias and uncertainty can be substantial enough to impede statistical convergence rates, even in seemingly straightforward analyses like mean calculation. The standard errors of such estimators then exhibit slower shrinkage with sample size than the typical 1 over root-$n$ rate. This complicates fundamental calculations like p-values and confidence intervals, with no straightforward remedy currently available. In response to these challenges, we propose a new strategy that targets synthetic data created by DGMs for specific data analyses. Drawing insights from debiased and targeted machine learning, our approach accounts for biases, enhances convergence rates, and facilitates the calculation of estimators with easily approximated large sample variances. We exemplify our proposal through a simulation study on toy data and two case studies on real-world data, highlighting the importance of tailoring DGMs for targeted data analysis. This debiasing strategy contributes to advancing the reliability and applicability of synthetic data in statistical inference. △ Less

Submitted 15 January, 2025; v1 submitted 6 November, 2024; originally announced November 2024.

Comments: Accepted for the 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024), joint first authors

Chasing Shadows: How Implausible Assumptions Skew Our Understanding of Causal Estimands

Authors: Stijn Vansteelandt, Kelly Van Lancker

Abstract: The ICH E9 (R1) addendum on estimands, coupled with recent advancements in causal inference, has prompted a shift towards using model-free treatment effect estimands that are more closely aligned with the underlying scientific question. This represents a departure from traditional, model-dependent approaches where the statistical model often overshadows the inquiry itself. While this shift is a po… ▽ More The ICH E9 (R1) addendum on estimands, coupled with recent advancements in causal inference, has prompted a shift towards using model-free treatment effect estimands that are more closely aligned with the underlying scientific question. This represents a departure from traditional, model-dependent approaches where the statistical model often overshadows the inquiry itself. While this shift is a positive development, it has unintentionally led to the prioritization of an estimand's ability to perfectly answer the key scientific question over its practical learnability from data under plausible assumptions. We illustrate this by scrutinizing assumptions in the recent clinical trials literature on principal stratum estimands, demonstrating that some popular assumptions are not only implausible but often inevitably violated. We advocate for a more balanced approach to estimand formulation, one that carefully considers both the scientific relevance and the practical feasibility of estimation under realistic conditions. △ Less

Submitted 9 October, 2024; v1 submitted 17 September, 2024; originally announced September 2024.

Two Stage Least Squares with Time-Varying Instruments: An Application to an Evaluation of Treatment Intensification for Type-2 Diabetes

Authors: Daniel Tompsett, Stijn Vansteelandt, Richard Grieve, Irene Petersen, Manuel Gomes

Abstract: As longitudinal data becomes more available in many settings, policy makers are increasingly interested in the effect of time-varying treatments (e.g. sustained treatment strategies). In settings such as this, the preferred analysis techniques are the g-methods, however these require the untestable assumption of no unmeasured confounding. Instrumental variable analyses can minimise bias through un… ▽ More As longitudinal data becomes more available in many settings, policy makers are increasingly interested in the effect of time-varying treatments (e.g. sustained treatment strategies). In settings such as this, the preferred analysis techniques are the g-methods, however these require the untestable assumption of no unmeasured confounding. Instrumental variable analyses can minimise bias through unmeasured confounding. Of these methods, the Two Stage Least Squares technique is one of the most well used in Econometrics, but it has not been fully extended, and evaluated, in full time-varying settings. This paper proposes a robust two stage least squares method for the econometric evaluation of time-varying treatment. Using a simulation study we found that, unlike standard two stage least squares, it performs relatively well across a wide range of circumstances, including model misspecification. It compares well with recent time-varying instrument approaches via g-estimation. We illustrate the methods in an evaluation of treatment intensification for Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, exploring the exogeneity in prescribing preferences to operationalise a time-varying instrument. △ Less

Submitted 10 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Comments: 34 Pages, 4 Figures, and 7 Tables

Instrumental Variable methods to target Hypothetical Estimands with longitudinal repeated measures data: Application to the STEP 1 trial

Authors: Jack Bowden, Jesper Madsen, Bryan Goldman, Aske Thorn Iversen, Xiaoran Liang, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The STEP 1 randomized trial evaluated the effect of taking semaglutide vs placebo on body weight over a 68 week duration. As with any study evaluating an intervention delivered over a sustained period, non-adherence was observed. This was addressed in the original trial analysis within the Estimand Framework by viewing non-adherence as an intercurrent event. The primary analysis applied a treatmen… ▽ More The STEP 1 randomized trial evaluated the effect of taking semaglutide vs placebo on body weight over a 68 week duration. As with any study evaluating an intervention delivered over a sustained period, non-adherence was observed. This was addressed in the original trial analysis within the Estimand Framework by viewing non-adherence as an intercurrent event. The primary analysis applied a treatment policy strategy which viewed it as an aspect of the treatment regimen, and thus made no adjustment for its presence. A supplementary analysis used a hypothetical strategy, targeting an estimand that would have been realised had all participants adhered, under the assumption that no post-baseline variables confounded adherence and change in body weight. In this paper we propose an alternative Instrumental Variable method to adjust for non-adherence which does not rely on the same `unconfoundedness' assumption and is less vulnerable to positivity violations (e.g., it can give valid results even under conditions where non-adherence is guaranteed). Unlike many previous Instrumental Variable approaches, it makes full use of the repeatedly measured outcome data, and allows for a time-varying effect of treatment adherence on a participant's weight. We show that it provides a natural vehicle for defining two distinct hypothetical estimands: the treatment effect if all participants would have adhered to semaglutide, and the treatment effect if all participants would have adhered to both semaglutide and placebo. When applied to the STEP 1 study, they both suggest a sustained, slowly decaying weight loss effect of semaglutide treatment. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Causal machine learning methods and use of sample splitting in settings with high-dimensional confounding

Authors: Susan Ellul, John B. Carlin, Stijn Vansteelandt, Margarita Moreno-Betancur

Abstract: Observational epidemiological studies commonly seek to estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Adjustment for potential confounding bias in modern studies is challenging due to the presence of high-dimensional confounding, which occurs when there are many confounders relative to sample size or complex relationships between continuous confounders and exposure and outcome. Despite r… ▽ More Observational epidemiological studies commonly seek to estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Adjustment for potential confounding bias in modern studies is challenging due to the presence of high-dimensional confounding, which occurs when there are many confounders relative to sample size or complex relationships between continuous confounders and exposure and outcome. Despite recent advances, limited evaluation, and guidance are available on the implementation of doubly robust methods, Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW) and Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE), with data-adaptive approaches and cross-fitting in realistic settings where high-dimensional confounding is present. Motivated by an early-life cohort study, we conducted an extensive simulation study to compare the relative performance of AIPW and TMLE using data-adaptive approaches in estimating the average causal effect (ACE). We evaluated the benefits of using cross-fitting with a varying number of folds, as well as the impact of using a reduced versus full (larger, more diverse) library in the Super Learner ensemble learning approach used for implementation. We found that AIPW and TMLE performed similarly in most cases for estimating the ACE, but TMLE was more stable. Cross-fitting improved the performance of both methods, but was more important for estimation of standard error and coverage than for point estimates, with the number of folds a less important consideration. Using a full Super Learner library was important to reduce bias and variance in complex scenarios typical of modern health research studies. △ Less

Submitted 13 November, 2024; v1 submitted 24 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Automated, efficient and model-free inference for randomized clinical trials via data-driven covariate adjustment

Authors: Kelly Van Lancker, Iván Díaz, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: In May 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released guidance for industry on "Adjustment for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biological Products". Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method for improving precision and power in clinical trials by adjusting for pre-specified, prognostic baseline variables. Though recommended by the FDA and the European… ▽ More In May 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released guidance for industry on "Adjustment for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biological Products". Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method for improving precision and power in clinical trials by adjusting for pre-specified, prognostic baseline variables. Though recommended by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), many trials do not exploit the available information in baseline variables or make use only of the baseline measurement of the outcome. This is likely (partly) due to the regulatory mandate to pre-specify baseline covariates for adjustment, leading to challenges in determining appropriate covariates and their functional forms. We will explore the potential of automated data-adaptive methods, such as machine learning algorithms, for covariate adjustment, addressing the challenge of pre-specification. Specifically, our approach allows the use of complex models or machine learning algorithms without compromising the interpretation or validity of the treatment effect estimate and its corresponding standard error, even in the presence of misspecified outcome working models. This contrasts the majority of competing works which assume correct model specification for the validity of standard errors. Our proposed estimators either necessitate ultra-sparsity in the outcome model (which can be relaxed by limiting the number of predictors in the model) or necessitate integration with sample splitting to enhance their performance. As such, we will arrive at simple estimators and standard errors for the marginal treatment effect in randomized clinical trials, which exploit data-adaptive outcome predictions based on prognostic baseline covariates, and have low (or no) bias in finite samples even when those predictions are themselves biased. △ Less

Submitted 17 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Assumption-Lean Quantile Regression

Authors: Georgi Baklicharov, Christophe Ley, Vanessa Gorasso, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Quantile regression is a powerful tool for detecting exposure-outcome associations given covariates across different parts of the outcome's distribution, but has two major limitations when the aim is to infer the effect of an exposure. Firstly, the exposure coefficient estimator may not converge to a meaningful quantity when the model is misspecified, and secondly, variable selection methods may i… ▽ More Quantile regression is a powerful tool for detecting exposure-outcome associations given covariates across different parts of the outcome's distribution, but has two major limitations when the aim is to infer the effect of an exposure. Firstly, the exposure coefficient estimator may not converge to a meaningful quantity when the model is misspecified, and secondly, variable selection methods may induce bias and excess uncertainty, rendering inferences biased and overly optimistic. In this paper, we address these issues via partially linear quantile regression models which parametrize the conditional association of interest, but do not restrict the association with other covariates in the model. We propose consistent estimators for the unknown model parameter by mapping it onto a nonparametric main effect estimand that captures the (conditional) association of interest even when the quantile model is misspecified. This estimand is estimated using the efficient influence function under the nonparametric model, allowing for the incorporation of data-adaptive procedures such as variable selection and machine learning. Our approach provides a flexible and reliable method for detecting associations that is robust to model misspecification and excess uncertainty induced by variable selection methods. The proposal is illustrated using simulation studies and data on annual health care costs associated with excess body weight. △ Less

Submitted 17 April, 2024; v1 submitted 16 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

The Real Deal Behind the Artificial Appeal: Inferential Utility of Tabular Synthetic Data

Authors: Alexander Decruyenaere, Heidelinde Dehaene, Paloma Rabaey, Christiaan Polet, Johan Decruyenaere, Stijn Vansteelandt, Thomas Demeester

Abstract: Recent advances in generative models facilitate the creation of synthetic data to be made available for research in privacy-sensitive contexts. However, the analysis of synthetic data raises a unique set of methodological challenges. In this work, we highlight the importance of inferential utility and provide empirical evidence against naive inference from synthetic data, whereby synthetic data ar… ▽ More Recent advances in generative models facilitate the creation of synthetic data to be made available for research in privacy-sensitive contexts. However, the analysis of synthetic data raises a unique set of methodological challenges. In this work, we highlight the importance of inferential utility and provide empirical evidence against naive inference from synthetic data, whereby synthetic data are treated as if they were actually observed. Before publishing synthetic data, it is essential to develop statistical inference tools for such data. By means of a simulation study, we show that the rate of false-positive findings (type 1 error) will be unacceptably high, even when the estimates are unbiased. Despite the use of a previously proposed correction factor, this problem persists for deep generative models, in part due to slower convergence of estimators and resulting underestimation of the true standard error. We further demonstrate our findings through a case study. △ Less

Submitted 12 June, 2024; v1 submitted 12 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

Comments: Accepted for the 40th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2024), *joint first authors

Orthogonal prediction of counterfactual outcomes

Authors: Stijn Vansteelandt, Paweł Morzywołek

Abstract: Orthogonal meta-learners, such as DR-learner, R-learner and IF-learner, are increasingly used to estimate conditional average treatment effects. They improve convergence rates relative to naïve meta-learners (e.g., T-, S- and X-learner) through de-biasing procedures that involve applying standard learners to specifically transformed outcome data. This leads them to disregard the possibly constrain… ▽ More Orthogonal meta-learners, such as DR-learner, R-learner and IF-learner, are increasingly used to estimate conditional average treatment effects. They improve convergence rates relative to naïve meta-learners (e.g., T-, S- and X-learner) through de-biasing procedures that involve applying standard learners to specifically transformed outcome data. This leads them to disregard the possibly constrained outcome space, which can be particularly problematic for dichotomous outcomes: these typically get transformed to values that are no longer constrained to the unit interval, making it difficult for standard learners to guarantee predictions within the unit interval. To address this, we construct orthogonal meta-learners for the prediction of counterfactual outcomes which respect the outcome space. As such, the obtained i-learner or imputation-learner is more generally expected to outperform existing learners, even when the outcome is unconstrained, as we confirm empirically in simulation studies and an analysis of critical care data. Our development also sheds broader light onto the construction of orthogonal learners for other estimands. △ Less

Submitted 15 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Propensity weighting plus adjustment in proportional hazards model is not doubly robust

Authors: Erin E Gabriel, Michael C Sachs, Ingeborg Waernbaum, Els Goetghebeur, Paul F Blanche, Stijn Vansteelandt, Arvid Sjölander, Thomas Scheike

Abstract: Recently, it has become common for applied works to combine commonly used survival analysis modeling methods, such as the multivariable Cox model and propensity score weighting, with the intention of forming a doubly robust estimator of an exposure effect hazard ratio that is unbiased in large samples when either the Cox model or the propensity score model is correctly specified. This combination… ▽ More Recently, it has become common for applied works to combine commonly used survival analysis modeling methods, such as the multivariable Cox model and propensity score weighting, with the intention of forming a doubly robust estimator of an exposure effect hazard ratio that is unbiased in large samples when either the Cox model or the propensity score model is correctly specified. This combination does not, in general, produce a doubly robust estimator, even after regression standardization, when there is truly a causal effect. We demonstrate via simulation this lack of double robustness for the semiparametric Cox model, the Weibull proportional hazards model, and a simple proportional hazards flexible parametric model, with both the latter models fit via maximum likelihood. We provide a novel proof that the combination of propensity score weighting and a proportional hazards survival model, fit either via full or partial likelihood, is consistent under the null of no causal effect of the exposure on the outcome under particular censoring mechanisms if either the propensity score or the outcome model is correctly specified and contains all confounders. Given our results suggesting that double robustness only exists under the null, we outline two simple alternative estimators that are doubly robust for the survival difference at a given time point (in the above sense), provided the censoring mechanism can be correctly modeled, and one doubly robust method of estimation for the full survival curve. We provide R code to use these estimators for estimation and inference in the supporting information. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2025; v1 submitted 24 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: correction to equation 8

Inverse probability of treatment weighting with generalized linear outcome models for doubly robust estimation

Authors: Erin E Gabriel, Michael C Sachs, Torben Martinussen, Ingeborg Waernbaum, Els Goetghebeur, Stijn Vansteelandt, Arvid Sjölander

Abstract: There are now many options for doubly robust estimation; however, there is a concerning trend in the applied literature to believe that the combination of a propensity score and an adjusted outcome model automatically results in a doubly robust estimator and/or to misuse more complex established doubly robust estimators. A simple alternative, canonical link generalized linear models (GLM) fit via… ▽ More There are now many options for doubly robust estimation; however, there is a concerning trend in the applied literature to believe that the combination of a propensity score and an adjusted outcome model automatically results in a doubly robust estimator and/or to misuse more complex established doubly robust estimators. A simple alternative, canonical link generalized linear models (GLM) fit via inverse probability of treatment (propensity score) weighted maximum likelihood estimation followed by standardization (the g-formula) for the average causal effect, is a doubly robust estimation method. Our aim is for the reader not just to be able to use this method, which we refer to as IPTW GLM, for doubly robust estimation, but to fully understand why it has the doubly robust property. For this reason, we define clearly, and in multiple ways, all concepts needed to understand the method and why it is doubly robust. In addition, we want to make very clear that the mere combination of propensity score weighting and an adjusted outcome model does not generally result in a doubly robust estimator. Finally, we hope to dispel the misconception that one can adjust for residual confounding remaining after propensity score weighting by adjusting in the outcome model for what remains `unbalanced' even when using doubly robust estimators. We provide R code for our simulations and real open-source data examples that can be followed step-by-step to use and hopefully understand the IPTW GLM method. We also compare to a much better-known but still simple doubly robust estimator. △ Less

Submitted 11 September, 2023; originally announced September 2023.

Optimally weighted average derivative effects

Authors: Oliver Hines, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Weighted average derivative effects (WADEs) are nonparametric estimands with uses in economics and causal inference. Debiased WADE estimators typically require learning the conditional mean outcome as well as a Riesz representer (RR) that characterises the requisite debiasing corrections. RR estimators for WADEs often rely on kernel estimators, introducing complicated bandwidth-dependant biases. I… ▽ More Weighted average derivative effects (WADEs) are nonparametric estimands with uses in economics and causal inference. Debiased WADE estimators typically require learning the conditional mean outcome as well as a Riesz representer (RR) that characterises the requisite debiasing corrections. RR estimators for WADEs often rely on kernel estimators, introducing complicated bandwidth-dependant biases. In our work we propose a new class of RRs that are isomorphic to the class of WADEs and we derive the WADE weight that is optimal, in the sense of having minimum nonparametric efficiency bound. Our optimal WADE estimators require estimating conditional expectations only (e.g. using machine learning), thus overcoming the limitations of kernel estimators. Moreover, we connect our optimal WADE to projection parameters in partially linear models. We ascribe a causal interpretation to WADE and projection parameters in terms of so-called incremental effects. We propose efficient estimators for two WADE estimands in our class, which we evaluate in a numerical experiment and use to determine the effect of Warfarin dose on blood clotting function. △ Less

Submitted 8 April, 2024; v1 submitted 10 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

On Weighted Orthogonal Learners for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Authors: Pawel Morzywolek, Johan Decruyenaere, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Motivated by applications in personalized medicine and individualized policymaking, there is a growing interest in techniques for quantifying treatment effect heterogeneity in terms of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). Some of the most prominent methods for CATE estimation developed in recent years are T-Learner, DR-Learner and R-Learner. The latter two were designed to improve on t… ▽ More Motivated by applications in personalized medicine and individualized policymaking, there is a growing interest in techniques for quantifying treatment effect heterogeneity in terms of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). Some of the most prominent methods for CATE estimation developed in recent years are T-Learner, DR-Learner and R-Learner. The latter two were designed to improve on the former by being Neyman-orthogonal. However, the relations between them remain unclear, and likewise the literature remains vague on whether these learners converge to a useful quantity or (functional) estimand when the underlying optimization procedure is restricted to a class of functions that does not include the CATE. In this article, we provide insight into these questions by discussing DR-Learner and R-Learner as special cases of a general class of weighted Neyman-orthogonal learners for the CATE, for which we moreover derive oracle bounds. Our results shed light on how one may construct Neyman-orthogonal learners with desirable properties, on when DR-Learner may be preferred over R-Learner (and vice versa), and on novel learners that may sometimes be preferable to either of these. Theoretical findings are confirmed using results from simulation studies on synthetic data, as well as an application in critical care medicine. △ Less

Submitted 31 May, 2024; v1 submitted 22 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: 70 pages, 8 figures

Adjusting for time-varying treatment switches in randomized clinical trials: the danger of extrapolation and how to avoid it

Authors: Hege Michiels, An Vandebosch, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: When choosing estimands and estimators in randomized clinical trials, caution is warranted as intercurrent events, such as - due to patients who switch treatment after disease progression, are often extreme. Statistical analyses may then easily lure one into making large implicit extrapolations, which often go unnoticed. We will illustrate this problem of implicit extrapolations using a real oncol… ▽ More When choosing estimands and estimators in randomized clinical trials, caution is warranted as intercurrent events, such as - due to patients who switch treatment after disease progression, are often extreme. Statistical analyses may then easily lure one into making large implicit extrapolations, which often go unnoticed. We will illustrate this problem of implicit extrapolations using a real oncology case study, with a right-censored time-to-event endpoint, in which patients can cross over from the control to the experimental treatment after disease progression, for ethical reasons. We resolve this by developing an estimator for the survival risk ratio contrasting the survival probabilities at each time t if all patients would take experimental treatment with the survival probabilities at those times t if all patients would take control treatment up to time t, using randomization as an instrumental variable to avoid reliance on no unmeasured confounders assumptions. This doubly robust estimator can handle time-varying treatment switches and right-censored survival times. Insight into the rationale behind the estimator is provided and the approach is demonstrated by re-analyzing the oncology trial. △ Less

Submitted 10 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Rejoinder to discussions on "Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio"

Authors: Linbo Wang, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Torben Martinussen, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: We respond to comments on our paper, titled "Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio." We respond to comments on our paper, titled "Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio." △ Less

Submitted 24 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: To appear in Biometrics

Structural mean models for instrumented difference-in-differences

Authors: Tat-Thang Vo, Ting Ye, Ashkan Ertefaie, Samrat Roy, James Flory, Sean Hennessy, Stijn Vansteelandt, Dylan S. Small

Abstract: In the standard difference-in-differences research design, the parallel trends assumption may be violated when the relationship between the exposure trend and the outcome trend is confounded by unmeasured confounders. Progress can be made if there is an exogenous variable that (i) does not directly influence the change in outcome means (i.e. the outcome trend) except through influencing the change… ▽ More In the standard difference-in-differences research design, the parallel trends assumption may be violated when the relationship between the exposure trend and the outcome trend is confounded by unmeasured confounders. Progress can be made if there is an exogenous variable that (i) does not directly influence the change in outcome means (i.e. the outcome trend) except through influencing the change in exposure means (i.e. the exposure trend), and (ii) is not related to the unmeasured exposure - outcome confounders on the trend scale. Such exogenous variable is called an instrument for difference-in-differences. For continuous outcomes that lend themselves to linear modelling, so-called instrumented difference-in-differences methods have been proposed. In this paper, we will suggest novel multiplicative structural mean models for instrumented difference-in-differences, which allow one to identify and estimate the average treatment effect on count and rare binary outcomes, in the whole population or among the treated, when a valid instrument for difference-in-differences is available. We discuss the identifiability of these models, then develop efficient semi-parametric estimation approaches that allow the use of flexible, data-adaptive or machine learning methods to estimate the nuisance parameters. We apply our proposal on health care data to investigate the risk of moderate to severe weight gain under sulfonylurea treatment compared to metformin treatment, among new users of antihyperglycemic drugs. △ Less

Submitted 21 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Variable importance measures for heterogeneous causal effects

Authors: Oliver Hines, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The recognition that personalised treatment decisions lead to better clinical outcomes has sparked recent research activity in the following two domains. Policy learning focuses on finding optimal treatment rules (OTRs), which express whether an individual would be better off with or without treatment, given their measured characteristics. OTRs optimize a pre-set population criterion, but do not p… ▽ More The recognition that personalised treatment decisions lead to better clinical outcomes has sparked recent research activity in the following two domains. Policy learning focuses on finding optimal treatment rules (OTRs), which express whether an individual would be better off with or without treatment, given their measured characteristics. OTRs optimize a pre-set population criterion, but do not provide insight into the extent to which treatment benefits or harms individual subjects. Estimates of conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) do offer such insights, but valid inference is currently difficult to obtain when data-adaptive methods are used. Moreover, clinicians are (rightly) hesitant to blindly adopt OTR or CATE estimates, not least since both may represent complicated functions of patient characteristics that provide little insight into the key drivers of heterogeneity. To address these limitations, we introduce novel nonparametric treatment effect variable importance measures (TE-VIMs). TE-VIMs extend recent regression-VIMs, viewed as nonparametric analogues to ANOVA statistics. By not being tied to a particular model, they are amenable to data-adaptive (machine learning) estimation of the CATE, itself an active area of research. Estimators for the proposed statistics are derived from their efficient influence curves and these are illustrated through a simulation study and an applied example. △ Less

Submitted 17 October, 2023; v1 submitted 12 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Ensuring valid inference for hazard ratios after variable selection

Authors: Kelly Van Lancker, Oliver Dukes, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The problem of how to best select variables for confounding adjustment forms one of the key challenges in the evaluation of exposure effects in observational studies, and has been the subject of vigorous recent activity in causal inference. A major drawback of routine procedures is that there is no finite sample size at which they are guaranteed to deliver exposure effect estimators and associated… ▽ More The problem of how to best select variables for confounding adjustment forms one of the key challenges in the evaluation of exposure effects in observational studies, and has been the subject of vigorous recent activity in causal inference. A major drawback of routine procedures is that there is no finite sample size at which they are guaranteed to deliver exposure effect estimators and associated confidence intervals with adequate performance. In this work, we will consider this problem when inferring conditional causal hazard ratios from observational studies under the assumption of no unmeasured confounding. The major complication that we face with survival data is that the key confounding variables may not be those that explain the censoring mechanism. In this paper, we overcome this problem using a novel and simple procedure that can be implemented using off-the-shelf software for penalized Cox regression. In particular, we will propose tests of the null hypothesis that the exposure has no effect on the considered survival endpoint, which are uniformly valid under standard sparsity conditions. Simulation results show that the proposed methods yield valid inferences even when covariates are high-dimensional. △ Less

Submitted 30 November, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Causal inference in survival analysis using longitudinal observational data: Sequential trials and marginal structural models

Authors: Ruth H. Keogh, Jon Michael Gran, Shaun R. Seaman, Gwyneth Davies, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Longitudinal observational patient data can be used to investigate the causal effects of time-varying treatments on time-to-event outcomes. Several methods have been developed for controlling for the time-dependent confounding that typically occurs. The most commonly used is inverse probability weighted estimation of marginal structural models (MSM-IPTW). An alternative, the sequential trials appr… ▽ More Longitudinal observational patient data can be used to investigate the causal effects of time-varying treatments on time-to-event outcomes. Several methods have been developed for controlling for the time-dependent confounding that typically occurs. The most commonly used is inverse probability weighted estimation of marginal structural models (MSM-IPTW). An alternative, the sequential trials approach, is increasingly popular, in particular in combination with the target trial emulation framework. This approach involves creating a sequence of `trials' from new time origins, restricting to individuals as yet untreated and meeting other eligibility criteria, and comparing treatment initiators and non-initiators. Individuals are censored when they deviate from their treatment status at the start of each `trial' (initiator/non-initiator) and this is addressed using inverse probability of censoring weights. The analysis is based on data combined across trials. We show that the sequential trials approach can estimate the parameter of a particular MSM, and compare it to a MSM-IPTW with respect to the estimands being identified, the assumptions needed and how data are used differently. We show how both approaches can estimate the same marginal risk differences. The two approaches are compared using a simulation study. The sequential trials approach, which tends to involve less extreme weights than MSM-IPTW, results in greater efficiency for estimating the marginal risk difference at most follow-up times, but this can, in certain scenarios, be reversed at late time points. We apply the methods to longitudinal observational data from the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry to estimate the effect of dornase alfa on survival. △ Less

Submitted 6 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Parameterising the effect of a continuous exposure using average derivative effects

Authors: Oliver Hines, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The (weighted) average treatment effect is commonly used to quantify the main effect of a binary exposure on an outcome. Extensions to continuous exposures, however, either quantify the effects of interventions that are rarely relevant (e.g., applying the same exposure level uniformly in the population), or consider shift interventions that are rarely intended, raising the question how large a shi… ▽ More The (weighted) average treatment effect is commonly used to quantify the main effect of a binary exposure on an outcome. Extensions to continuous exposures, however, either quantify the effects of interventions that are rarely relevant (e.g., applying the same exposure level uniformly in the population), or consider shift interventions that are rarely intended, raising the question how large a shift to consider. Average derivative effects (ADEs) instead express the effect of an infinitesimal shift in each subject's exposure level, making inference less prone to extrapolation. ADEs, however, are rarely considered in practice because their estimation usually requires estimation of (a) the conditional density of exposure given covariates, and (b) the derivative of (a) w.r.t. exposure. Here, we introduce a class of estimands which can be inferred without requiring estimates of (a) and (b), but which reduce to ADEs when the exposure obeys a specific distribution determined by the choice of estimand in the class. We moreover show that when the exposure does not obey this distribution, our estimand represents an ADE w.r.t. an `intervention' exposure distribution. We identify the `optimal' estimand in our class and propose debiased machine learning estimators, by deriving influence functions under the nonparametric model. △ Less

Submitted 27 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

On Estimation and Cross-validation of Dynamic Treatment Regimes with Competing Risks

Authors: Pawel Morzywolek, Johan Steen, Wim Van Biesen, Johan Decruyenaere, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The optimal moment to start renal replacement therapy in a patient with acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a challenging problem in intensive care nephrology. Multiple randomised controlled trials have tried to answer this question, but these can, by definition, only analyse a limited number of treatment initiation strategies. In view of this, we use routinely collected observational data from the… ▽ More The optimal moment to start renal replacement therapy in a patient with acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a challenging problem in intensive care nephrology. Multiple randomised controlled trials have tried to answer this question, but these can, by definition, only analyse a limited number of treatment initiation strategies. In view of this, we use routinely collected observational data from the Ghent University Hospital intensive care units (ICUs) to investigate different pre-specified timing strategies for renal replacement therapy initiation based on time-updated levels of serum potassium, pH and fluid balance in critically ill patients with AKI with the aim to minimize 30-day ICU mortality. For this purpose, we apply statistical techniques for evaluating the impact of specific dynamic treatment regimes in the presence of ICU discharge as a competing event. We discuss two approaches, a non-parametric one - using an inverse probability weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator - and a semiparametric one - using dynamic-regime marginal structural models. Furthermore, we suggest an easy to implement cross-validation technique that can be used for the out-of-sample performance assessment of the optimal dynamic treatment regime. Our work illustrates the potential of data-driven medical decision support based on routinely collected observational data. △ Less

Submitted 9 June, 2022; v1 submitted 1 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: 49 pages, 4 figures

On Doubly Robust Inference for Double Machine Learning in Semiparametric Regression

Authors: Oliver Dukes, Stijn Vansteelandt, David Whitney

Abstract: Due to concerns about parametric model misspecification, there is interest in using machine learning to adjust for confounding when evaluating the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Unfortunately, exposure effect estimators that rely on machine learning predictions are generally subject to so-called plug-in bias, which can render naive $p$-values and confidence intervals invalid. Progress… ▽ More Due to concerns about parametric model misspecification, there is interest in using machine learning to adjust for confounding when evaluating the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Unfortunately, exposure effect estimators that rely on machine learning predictions are generally subject to so-called plug-in bias, which can render naive $p$-values and confidence intervals invalid. Progress has been made via proposals like targeted minimum loss estimation and more recently double machine learning, which rely on learning the conditional mean of both the outcome and exposure. Valid inference can then be obtained so long as both predictions converge (sufficiently fast) to the truth. Focusing on partially linear regression models, we show that a specific implementation of the machine learning techniques can yield exposure effect estimators that have small bias even when one of the first-stage predictions does not converge to the truth. The resulting tests and confidence intervals are doubly robust. We also show that the proposed estimators may fail to be regular when only one nuisance parameter is consistently estimated; nevertheless, we observe in simulation studies that our proposal can lead to reduced bias and improved confidence interval coverage in moderate-to-large samples. △ Less

Submitted 7 January, 2025; v1 submitted 13 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Comments: 46 pages, 9 figures

Journal ref: Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2024

Demystifying statistical learning based on efficient influence functions

Authors: Oliver Hines, Oliver Dukes, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Evaluation of treatment effects and more general estimands is typically achieved via parametric modelling, which is unsatisfactory since model misspecification is likely. Data-adaptive model building (e.g. statistical/machine learning) is commonly employed to reduce the risk of misspecification. Naive use of such methods, however, delivers estimators whose bias may shrink too slowly with sample si… ▽ More Evaluation of treatment effects and more general estimands is typically achieved via parametric modelling, which is unsatisfactory since model misspecification is likely. Data-adaptive model building (e.g. statistical/machine learning) is commonly employed to reduce the risk of misspecification. Naive use of such methods, however, delivers estimators whose bias may shrink too slowly with sample size for inferential methods to perform well, including those based on the bootstrap. Bias arises because standard data-adaptive methods are tuned towards minimal prediction error as opposed to e.g. minimal MSE in the estimator. This may cause excess variability that is difficult to acknowledge, due to the complexity of such strategies. Building on results from non-parametric statistics, targeted learning and debiased machine learning overcome these problems by constructing estimators using the estimand's efficient influence function under the non-parametric model. These increasingly popular methodologies typically assume that the efficient influence function is given, or that the reader is familiar with its derivation. In this paper, we focus on derivation of the efficient influence function and explain how it may be used to construct statistical/machine-learning-based estimators. We discuss the requisite conditions for these estimators to perform well and use diverse examples to convey the broad applicability of the theory. △ Less

Submitted 1 December, 2021; v1 submitted 1 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Challenges in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mediation analyses

Authors: Tat-Thang Vo, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mediation studies are increasingly being implemented in practice. Nonetheless, the methodology for conducting such review and analysis is still in a development phase, with much room for improvement. In this paper, we highlight and discuss challenges that investigators face in mediation systematic reviews and meta-analyses, then propose ways of accommodating… ▽ More Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mediation studies are increasingly being implemented in practice. Nonetheless, the methodology for conducting such review and analysis is still in a development phase, with much room for improvement. In this paper, we highlight and discuss challenges that investigators face in mediation systematic reviews and meta-analyses, then propose ways of accommodating these in practice. △ Less

Submitted 22 March, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

Comments: Currently under peer-review at the American Journal of Epidemiology

Sensitivity Analysis for Unmeasured Confounding via Effect Extrapolation

Authors: Wen Wei Loh, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Inferring the causal effect of a non-randomly assigned exposure on an outcome requires adjusting for common causes of the exposure and outcome to avoid biased conclusions. Notwithstanding the efforts investigators routinely make to measure and adjust for such common causes (or confounders), some confounders typically remain unmeasured, raising the prospect of biased inference in observational stud… ▽ More Inferring the causal effect of a non-randomly assigned exposure on an outcome requires adjusting for common causes of the exposure and outcome to avoid biased conclusions. Notwithstanding the efforts investigators routinely make to measure and adjust for such common causes (or confounders), some confounders typically remain unmeasured, raising the prospect of biased inference in observational studies. Therefore, it is crucial that investigators can practically assess their substantive conclusions' relative (in)sensitivity to potential unmeasured confounding. In this article, we propose a sensitivity analysis strategy that is informed by the stability of the exposure effect over different, well-chosen subsets of the measured confounders. The proposal entails first approximating the process for recording confounders to learn about how the effect is potentially affected by varying amounts of unmeasured confounding, then extrapolating to the effect had hypothetical unmeasured confounders been additionally adjusted for. A large set of measured confounders can thus be exploited to provide insight into the likely presence of unmeasured confounding bias, albeit under an assumption about how data on the confounders are recorded. The proposal's ability to reveal the true effect and ensure valid inference after extrapolation is empirically compared with existing methods using simulation studies. We demonstrate the procedure using two different publicly available datasets commonly used for causal inference. △ Less

Submitted 3 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

Handling time-dependent exposures and confounders when estimating attributable fractions -- bridging the gap between multistate and counterfactual modeling

Authors: Johan Steen, Pawel Morzywolek, Wim Van Biesen, Johan Decruyenaere, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The population-attributable fraction (PAF) expresses the proportion of events that can be ascribed to a certain exposure in a certain population. It can be strongly time-dependent because either exposure incidence or excess risk may change over time. Competing events may moreover hinder the outcome of interest from being observed. Occurrence of either of these events may, in turn, prevent the expo… ▽ More The population-attributable fraction (PAF) expresses the proportion of events that can be ascribed to a certain exposure in a certain population. It can be strongly time-dependent because either exposure incidence or excess risk may change over time. Competing events may moreover hinder the outcome of interest from being observed. Occurrence of either of these events may, in turn, prevent the exposure of interest. Estimation approaches therefore need to carefully account for the timing of events in such highly dynamic settings. The use of multistate models has been widely encouraged to eliminate preventable yet common types of time-dependent bias. Even so, it has been pointed out that proposed multistate modeling approaches for PAF estimation fail to fully eliminate such bias. In addition, assessing whether patients die from rather than with a certain exposure not only requires adequate modeling of the timing of events but also of their confounding factors. While proposed multistate modeling approaches for confounding adjustment may adequately accommodate baseline imbalances, unlike g-methods, these proposals are not generally equipped to handle time-dependent confounding. However, the connection between multistate modeling and g-methods (e.g. inverse probability of censoring weighting) for PAF estimation is not readily apparent. In this paper, we provide a weighting-based characterization of both approaches to illustrate this connection, to pinpoint current shortcomings of multistate modeling, and to enhance intuition into simple modifications to overcome these. R code is made available to foster the uptake of g-methods for PAF estimation. △ Less

Submitted 23 December, 2023; v1 submitted 9 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

A novel estimand to adjust for rescue treatment in clinical trials

Authors: Hege Michiels, Cristina Sotto, An Vandebosch, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The interpretation of randomised clinical trial results is often complicated by intercurrent events. For instance, rescue medication is sometimes given to patients in response to worsening of their disease, either in addition to the randomised treatment or in its place. The use of such medication complicates the interpretation of the intention-to-treat analysis. In view of this, we propose a novel… ▽ More The interpretation of randomised clinical trial results is often complicated by intercurrent events. For instance, rescue medication is sometimes given to patients in response to worsening of their disease, either in addition to the randomised treatment or in its place. The use of such medication complicates the interpretation of the intention-to-treat analysis. In view of this, we propose a novel estimand defined as the intention-to-treat effect that would have been observed, had patients on the active arm been switched to rescue medication if and only if they would have been switched when randomised to control. This enables us to disentangle the treatment effect from the effect of rescue medication on a patient's outcome, while avoiding the strong extrapolations that are typically needed when inferring what the intention-to-treat effect would have been in the absence of rescue medication. We develop an inverse probability weighting method to estimate this estimand under specific untestable assumptions, in view of which we propose a sensitivity analysis. We use the method for the analysis of a clinical trial conducted by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, in which chronically ill patients can switch to rescue medication for ethical reasons. Monte Carlo simulations confirm that the proposed estimator is unbiased in moderate sample sizes. △ Less

Submitted 25 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Efficient, Doubly Robust Estimation of the Effect of Dose Switching for Switchers in a Randomised Clinical Trial

Authors: Kelly Van Lancker, An Vandebosch, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Motivated by a clinical trial conducted by Janssen Pharmaceuticals in which a flexible dosing regimen is compared to placebo, we evaluate how switchers in the treatment arm (i.e., patients who were switched to the higher dose) would have fared had they been kept on the low dose. This in order to understand whether flexible dosing is potentially beneficial for them. Simply comparing these patients'… ▽ More Motivated by a clinical trial conducted by Janssen Pharmaceuticals in which a flexible dosing regimen is compared to placebo, we evaluate how switchers in the treatment arm (i.e., patients who were switched to the higher dose) would have fared had they been kept on the low dose. This in order to understand whether flexible dosing is potentially beneficial for them. Simply comparing these patients' responses with those of patients who stayed on the low dose is unsatisfactory because the latter patients are usually in a better health condition. Because the available information in the considered trial is too scarce to enable a reliable adjustment, we will instead transport data from a fixed dosing trial that has been conducted concurrently on the same target, albeit not in an identical patient population. In particular, we will propose an estimator which relies on an outcome model and a propensity score model for the association between study and patient characteristics. The proposed estimator is asymptotically unbiased if at least one of both models is correctly specified, and efficient (under the model defined by the restrictions on the propensity score) when both models are correctly specified. We show that the proposed method for using results from an external study is generically applicable in studies where a classical confounding adjustment is not possible due to positivity violation (e.g., studies where switching takes place in a deterministic manner). Monte Carlo simulations and application to the motivating study demonstrate adequate performance. △ Less

Submitted 4 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Principled Selection of Baseline Covariates to Account for Censoring in Randomized Trials with a Survival Endpoint

Authors: Kelly Van Lancker, Oliver Dukes, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: The analysis of randomized trials with time-to-event endpoints is nearly always plagued by the problem of censoring. As the censoring mechanism is usually unknown, analyses typically employ the assumption of non-informative censoring. While this assumption usually becomes more plausible as more baseline covariates are being adjusted for, such adjustment also raises concerns. Pre-specification of w… ▽ More The analysis of randomized trials with time-to-event endpoints is nearly always plagued by the problem of censoring. As the censoring mechanism is usually unknown, analyses typically employ the assumption of non-informative censoring. While this assumption usually becomes more plausible as more baseline covariates are being adjusted for, such adjustment also raises concerns. Pre-specification of which covariates will be adjusted for (and how) is difficult, thus prompting the use of data-driven variable selection procedures, which may impede valid inferences to be drawn. The adjustment for covariates moreover adds concerns about model misspecification, and the fact that each change in adjustment set, also changes the censoring assumption and the treatment effect estimand. In this paper, we discuss these concerns and propose a simple variable selection strategy that aims to produce a valid test of the null in large samples. The proposal can be implemented using off-the-shelf software for (penalized) Cox regression, and is empirically found to work well in simulation studies and real data analyses. △ Less

Submitted 16 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Longitudinal mediation analysis of time-to-event endpoints in the presence of competing risks

Authors: Tat-Thang Vo, Hilary Davies-Kershaw, Ruth Hackett, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: This proposal is motivated by an analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which aims to investigate the role of loneliness in explaining the negative impact of hearing loss on dementia. The methodological challenges that complicate this mediation analysis include the use of a time-to-event endpoint subject to competing risks, as well as the presence of feedback relationships be… ▽ More This proposal is motivated by an analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which aims to investigate the role of loneliness in explaining the negative impact of hearing loss on dementia. The methodological challenges that complicate this mediation analysis include the use of a time-to-event endpoint subject to competing risks, as well as the presence of feedback relationships between the mediator and confounders that are both repeatedly measured over time. To account for these challenges, we introduce natural effect proportional (cause-specific) hazard models. These extend marginal structural proportional (cause-specific) hazard models to enable effect decomposition. We show that under certain causal assumptions, the path-specific direct and indirect effects indexing this model are identifiable from the observed data. We next propose an inverse probability weighting approach to estimate these effects. On the ELSA data, this approach reveals little evidence that the total efect of hearing loss on dementia is mediated through the feeling of loneliness, with a non-statistically significant indirect effect equal to 1.012 (hazard ratio (HR) scale; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.986 to 1.053). △ Less

Submitted 7 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: Currently under peer-review at Statistics in Medicine

Robust Inference for Mediated Effects in Partially Linear Models

Authors: Oliver Hines, Stijn Vansteelandt, Karla Diaz-Ordaz

Abstract: We consider mediated effects of an exposure, X on an outcome, Y, via a mediator, M, under no unmeasured confounding assumptions in the setting where models for the conditional expectation of the mediator and outcome are partially linear. We propose G-estimators for the direct and indirect effect and demonstrate consistent asymptotic normality for indirect effects when models for the conditional me… ▽ More We consider mediated effects of an exposure, X on an outcome, Y, via a mediator, M, under no unmeasured confounding assumptions in the setting where models for the conditional expectation of the mediator and outcome are partially linear. We propose G-estimators for the direct and indirect effect and demonstrate consistent asymptotic normality for indirect effects when models for the conditional means of M, or X and Y are correctly specified, and for direct effects, when models for the conditional means of Y, or X and M are correct. This marks an improvement, in this particular setting, over previous `triple' robust methods, which do not assume partially linear mean models. Testing of the no-mediation hypothesis is inherently problematic due to the composite nature of the test (either X has no effect on M or M no effect on Y), leading to low power when both effect sizes are small. We use Generalized Methods of Moments (GMM) results to construct a new score testing framework, which includes as special cases the no-mediation and the no-direct-effect hypotheses. The proposed tests rely on an orthogonal estimation strategy for estimating nuisance parameters. Simulations show that the GMM based tests perform better in terms of power and small sample performance compared with traditional tests in the partially linear setting, with drastic improvement under model misspecification. New methods are illustrated in a mediation analysis of data from the COPERS trial, a randomized trial investigating the effect of a non-pharmacological intervention of patients suffering from chronic pain. An accompanying R package implementing these methods can be found at github.com/ohines/plmed. △ Less

Submitted 28 April, 2021; v1 submitted 1 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Journal ref: Psychometrika 86 (2021) 595-618

A statistical test to reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model

Authors: Tyler J. VanderWeele, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Factor analysis is often used to assess whether a single univariate latent variable is sufficient to explain most of the covariance among a set of indicators for some underlying construct. When evidence suggests that a single factor is adequate, research often proceeds by using a univariate summary of the indicators in subsequent research. Implicit in such practices is the assumption that it is th… ▽ More Factor analysis is often used to assess whether a single univariate latent variable is sufficient to explain most of the covariance among a set of indicators for some underlying construct. When evidence suggests that a single factor is adequate, research often proceeds by using a univariate summary of the indicators in subsequent research. Implicit in such practices is the assumption that it is the underlying latent, rather than the indicators, that is causally efficacious. The assumption that the indicators do not have effects on anything subsequent, and that they are themselves only affected by antecedents through the underlying latent is a strong assumption, effectively imposing a structural interpretation on the latent factor model. In this paper, we show that this structural assumption has empirically testable implications, even though the latent variable itself is unobserved. We develop a statistical test to potentially reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model. We apply this test to data concerning associations between the Satisfaction-with-Life-Scale and subsequent all-cause mortality, which provides strong evidence against a structural interpretation for a univariate latent underlying the scale. Discussion is given to the implications of this result for the development, evaluation, and use of measures and for the use of factor analysis itself. △ Less

Submitted 14 April, 2022; v1 submitted 29 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Assumption-lean inference for generalised linear model parameters

Authors: Stijn Vansteelandt, Oliver Dukes

Abstract: Inference for the parameters indexing generalised linear models is routinely based on the assumption that the model is correct and a priori specified. This is unsatisfactory because the chosen model is usually the result of a data-adaptive model selection process, which may induce excess uncertainty that is not usually acknowledged. Moreover, the assumptions encoded in the chosen model rarely repr… ▽ More Inference for the parameters indexing generalised linear models is routinely based on the assumption that the model is correct and a priori specified. This is unsatisfactory because the chosen model is usually the result of a data-adaptive model selection process, which may induce excess uncertainty that is not usually acknowledged. Moreover, the assumptions encoded in the chosen model rarely represent some a priori known, ground truth, making standard inferences prone to bias, but also failing to give a pure reflection of the information that is contained in the data. Inspired by developments on assumption-free inference for so-called projection parameters, we here propose novel nonparametric definitions of main effect estimands and effect modification estimands. These reduce to standard main effect and effect modification parameters in generalised linear models when these models are correctly specified, but have the advantage that they continue to capture respectively the primary (conditional) association between two variables, or the degree to which two variables interact (in a statistical sense) in their effect on outcome, even when these models are misspecified. We achieve an assumption-lean inference for these estimands (and thus for the underlying regression parameters) by deriving their influence curve under the nonparametric model and invoking flexible data-adaptive (e.g., machine learning) procedures. △ Less

Submitted 15 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Comments: 37 pages, 2 tables

Simulating longitudinal data from marginal structural models using the additive hazard model

Authors: Ruth H. Keogh, Shaun R. Seaman, Jon Michael Gran, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Observational longitudinal data on treatments and covariates are increasingly used to investigate treatment effects, but are often subject to time-dependent confounding. Marginal structural models (MSMs), estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting or the g-formula, are popular for handling this problem. With increasing development of advanced causal inference methods, it is importa… ▽ More Observational longitudinal data on treatments and covariates are increasingly used to investigate treatment effects, but are often subject to time-dependent confounding. Marginal structural models (MSMs), estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting or the g-formula, are popular for handling this problem. With increasing development of advanced causal inference methods, it is important to be able to assess their performance in different scenarios to guide their application. Simulation studies are a key tool for this, but their use to evaluate causal inference methods has been limited. This paper focuses on the use of simulations for evaluations involving MSMs in studies with a time-to-event outcome. In a simulation, it is important to be able to generate the data in such a way that the correct form of any models to be fitted to those data is known. However, this is not straightforward in the longitudinal setting because it is natural for data to be generated in a sequential conditional manner, whereas MSMs involve fitting marginal rather than conditional hazard models. We provide general results that enable the form of the correctly-specified MSM to be derived based on a conditional data generating procedure, and show how the results can be applied when the conditional hazard model is an Aalen additive hazard or Cox model. Using conditional additive hazard models is advantageous because they imply additive MSMs that can be fitted using standard software. We describe and illustrate a simulation algorithm. Our results will help researchers to effectively evaluate causal inference methods via simulation. △ Less

Submitted 10 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Confounder selection strategies targeting stable treatment effect estimators

Authors: Wen Wei Loh, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Inferring the causal effect of a treatment on an outcome in an observational study requires adjusting for observed baseline confounders to avoid bias. However, adjusting for all observed baseline covariates, when only a subset are confounders of the effect of interest, is known to yield potentially inefficient and unstable estimators of the treatment effect. Furthermore, it raises the risk of fini… ▽ More Inferring the causal effect of a treatment on an outcome in an observational study requires adjusting for observed baseline confounders to avoid bias. However, adjusting for all observed baseline covariates, when only a subset are confounders of the effect of interest, is known to yield potentially inefficient and unstable estimators of the treatment effect. Furthermore, it raises the risk of finite-sample bias and bias due to model misspecification. For these stated reasons, confounder (or covariate) selection is commonly used to determine a subset of the available covariates that is sufficient for confounding adjustment. In this article, we propose a confounder selection strategy that focuses on stable estimation of the treatment effect. In particular, when the propensity score model already includes covariates that are sufficient to adjust for confounding, then the addition of covariates that are associated with either treatment or outcome alone, but not both, should not systematically change the effect estimator. The proposal, therefore, entails first prioritizing covariates for inclusion in the propensity score model, then using a change-in-estimate approach to select the smallest adjustment set that yields a stable effect estimate. The ability of the proposal to correctly select confounders, and to ensure valid inference of the treatment effect following data-driven covariate selection, is assessed empirically and compared with existing methods using simulation studies. We demonstrate the procedure using three different publicly available datasets commonly used for causal inference. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2020; v1 submitted 24 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Non-linear Mediation Analysis with High-dimensional Mediators whose Causal Structure is Unknown

Authors: Wen Wei Loh, Beatrijs Moerkerke, Tom Loeys, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: With multiple potential mediators on the causal pathway from a treatment to an outcome, we consider the problem of decomposing the effects along multiple possible causal path(s) through each distinct mediator. Under Pearl's path-specific effects framework (Pearl, 2001; Avin et al., 2005), such fine-grained decompositions necessitate stringent assumptions, such as correctly specifying the causal st… ▽ More With multiple potential mediators on the causal pathway from a treatment to an outcome, we consider the problem of decomposing the effects along multiple possible causal path(s) through each distinct mediator. Under Pearl's path-specific effects framework (Pearl, 2001; Avin et al., 2005), such fine-grained decompositions necessitate stringent assumptions, such as correctly specifying the causal structure among the mediators, and there being no unobserved confounding among the mediators. In contrast, interventional direct and indirect effects for multiple mediators (Vansteelandt and Daniel, 2017) can be identified under much weaker conditions, while providing scientifically relevant causal interpretations. Nonetheless, current estimation approaches require (correctly) specifying a model for the joint mediator distribution, which can be difficult when there is a high-dimensional set of possibly continuous and non-continuous mediators. In this article, we avoid the need to model this distribution, by developing a definition of interventional effects previously suggested by VanderWeele and Tchetgen Tchetgen (2017) for longitudinal mediation. We propose a novel estimation strategy that uses non-parametric estimates of the (counterfactual) mediator distributions. Non-continuous outcomes can be accommodated using non-linear outcome models. Estimation proceeds via Monte Carlo integration. The procedure is illustrated using publicly available genomic data (Huang and Pan, 2016) to assess the causal effect of a microRNA expression on the three-month mortality of brain cancer patients that is potentially mediated by expression values of multiple genes. △ Less

Submitted 14 June, 2020; v1 submitted 20 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Comments: 30 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables

Longitudinal Mediation Analysis Using Natural Effect Models

Authors: Murthy N Mittinty, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Mediation analysis is concerned with the decomposition of the total effect of an exposure on an outcome into the indirect effect through a given mediator, and the remaining direct effect. This is ideally done using longitudinal measurements of the mediator, as these capture the mediator process more finely. However, longitudinal measurements pose challenges for mediation analysis. This is because… ▽ More Mediation analysis is concerned with the decomposition of the total effect of an exposure on an outcome into the indirect effect through a given mediator, and the remaining direct effect. This is ideally done using longitudinal measurements of the mediator, as these capture the mediator process more finely. However, longitudinal measurements pose challenges for mediation analysis. This is because the mediators and outcomes measured at a given time-point can act as confounders for the association between mediators and outcomes at a later time-point; these confounders are themselves affected by the prior exposure and outcome. Such post-treatment confounding cannot be dealt with using standard methods (e.g. generalized estimating equations). Analysis is further complicated by the need for so-called cross-world counterfactuals to decompose the total effect. This article addresses these challenges. In particular, we introduce so-called natural effect models, which parameterize the direct and indirect effect of a baseline exposure w.r.t. a longitudinal mediator and outcome. These can be viewed as a generalization of marginal structural models to enable effect decomposition. We introduce inverse probability weighting techniques for fitting these models, adjusting for (measured) time-varying confounding of the mediator-outcome association. Application of this methodology uses data from the Millennium Cohort Study, UK. △ Less

Submitted 3 December, 2019; originally announced December 2019.

Comments: 30 pages, 5 figures, 3 Tables, 3 Appendices

A novel approach for identifying and addressing case-mix heterogeneity in individual participant data meta-analysis

Authors: Tat-Thang Vo, Raphael Porcher, Anna Chaimani, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Case-mix heterogeneity across studies complicates meta-analyses. As a result of this, treatments that are equally effective on patient subgroups may appear to have different effectiveness on patient populations with different case mix. It is therefore important that meta-analyses be explicit for what patient population they describe the treatment effect. To achieve this, we develop a new approach… ▽ More Case-mix heterogeneity across studies complicates meta-analyses. As a result of this, treatments that are equally effective on patient subgroups may appear to have different effectiveness on patient populations with different case mix. It is therefore important that meta-analyses be explicit for what patient population they describe the treatment effect. To achieve this, we develop a new approach for meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, which use individual patient data (IPD) from all trials to infer the treatment effect for the patient population in a given trial, based on direct standardization using either outcome regression (OCR) or inverse probability weighting (IPW). Accompanying random-effect meta-analysis models are developed. The new approach enables disentangling heterogeneity due to case mix from that due to beyond case-mix reasons. △ Less

Submitted 24 August, 2021; v1 submitted 28 August, 2019; originally announced August 2019.

Comments: Published on Research Synthesis Methods

Journal ref: Res Syn Meth (2019), Vol 10: 582-596

Heterogeneous Indirect Effects for Multiple Mediators using Interventional Effect Models

Authors: Wen Wei Loh, Beatrijs Moerkerke, Tom Loeys, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Decomposing an exposure effect on an outcome into separate natural indirect effects through multiple mediators requires strict assumptions, such as correctly postulating the causal structure of the mediators, and no unmeasured confounding among the mediators. In contrast, interventional indirect effects for multiple mediators can be identified even when - as often - the mediators either have an un… ▽ More Decomposing an exposure effect on an outcome into separate natural indirect effects through multiple mediators requires strict assumptions, such as correctly postulating the causal structure of the mediators, and no unmeasured confounding among the mediators. In contrast, interventional indirect effects for multiple mediators can be identified even when - as often - the mediators either have an unknown causal structure, or share unmeasured common causes, or both. Existing estimation methods for interventional indirect effects require calculating each distinct indirect effect in turn. This can quickly become unwieldy or unfeasible, especially when investigating indirect effect measures that may be modified by observed baseline characteristics. In this article, we introduce simplified estimation procedures for such heterogeneous interventional indirect effects using interventional effect models. Interventional effect models are a class of marginal structural models that encode the interventional indirect effects as causal model parameters, thus readily permitting effect modification by baseline covariates using (statistical) interaction terms. The mediators and outcome can be continuous or noncontinuous. We propose two estimation procedures: one using inverse weighting by the counterfactual mediator density or mass functions, and another using Monte Carlo integration. The former has the advantage of not requiring an outcome model, but is susceptible to finite sample biases due to highly variable weights. The latter has the advantage of consistent estimation under a correctly specified (parametric) outcome model, but is susceptible to biases due to extrapolation. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2020; v1 submitted 19 July, 2019; originally announced July 2019.

Improving interim decisions in randomized trials by exploiting information on short-term outcomes and prognostic baseline covariates

Authors: Kelly Van Lancker, An Vandebosch, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short-term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach whic… ▽ More Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short-term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach which exploits the information contained in baseline covariates and short-term outcomes. We will realise this by considering the estimation of the treatment effect at the interim analysis as a missing data problem. This problem is addressed by employing specific prediction models for the long-term endpoint which enable the incorporation of baseline covariates and multiple short-term endpoints. We show that the proposed procedure leads to an efficiency gain and a reduced sample size, without compromising the Type I error rate of the procedure, even when the adopted prediction models are misspecified. In particular, implementing our proposal in the conditional power approach allows earlier decisions relative to standard approaches, whilst controlling the probability of an incorrect decision. This time gain results in a lower expected number of recruited patients in case of stopping for futility, such that fewer patients receive the futile regimen. We explain how these methods can be used in adaptive designs with unblinded sample size reassessment based on the inverse normal $p$-value combination method to control type I error. We support the proposal by Monte Carlo simulations based on data from a real clinical trial. △ Less

Submitted 9 April, 2019; originally announced April 2019.

Uniformly valid confidence intervals for conditional treatment effects in misspecified high-dimensional models

Authors: Oliver Dukes, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Eliminating the effect of confounding in observational studies typically involves fitting a model for an outcome adjusted for covariates. When, as often, these covariates are high-dimensional, this necessitates the use of sparse estimators such as the Lasso, or other regularisation approaches. Naiive use of such estimators yields confidence intervals for the conditional treatment effect parameter… ▽ More Eliminating the effect of confounding in observational studies typically involves fitting a model for an outcome adjusted for covariates. When, as often, these covariates are high-dimensional, this necessitates the use of sparse estimators such as the Lasso, or other regularisation approaches. Naiive use of such estimators yields confidence intervals for the conditional treatment effect parameter that are not uniformly valid. Moreover, as the number of covariates grows with sample size, correctly specifying a model for the outcome is non-trivial. In this work, we deal with both of these concerns simultaneously, delivering confidence intervals for conditional treatment effects that are uniformly valid, regardless of whether the outcome model is correct. This is done by incorporating an additional model for the treatment-selection mechanism. When both models are correctly specified, we can weaken the standard conditions on model sparsity. Our procedure extends to multivariate treatment effect parameters and complex longitudinal settings. △ Less

Submitted 25 March, 2019; originally announced March 2019.

Comments: 40 pages, 4 tables

Subtleties in the interpretation of hazard ratios

Authors: Torben Martinussen, Stijn Vansteelandt, Per Kragh Andersen

Abstract: The hazard ratio is one of the most commonly reported measures of treatment effect in randomised trials, yet the source of much misinterpretation. This point was made clear by (Hernan, 2010) in commentary, which emphasised that the hazard ratio contrasts populations of treated and untreated individuals who survived a given period of time, populations that will typically fail to be comparable - eve… ▽ More The hazard ratio is one of the most commonly reported measures of treatment effect in randomised trials, yet the source of much misinterpretation. This point was made clear by (Hernan, 2010) in commentary, which emphasised that the hazard ratio contrasts populations of treated and untreated individuals who survived a given period of time, populations that will typically fail to be comparable - even in a randomised trial - as a result of different pressures or intensities acting on both populations. The commentary has been very influential, but also a source of surprise and confusion. In this note, we aim to provide more insight into the subtle interpretation of hazard ratios and differences, by investigating in particular what can be learned about treatment effect from the hazard ratio becoming 1 after a certain period of time. Throughout, we will focus on the analysis of randomised experiments, but our results have immediate implications for the interpretation of hazard ratios in observational studies. △ Less

Submitted 22 October, 2018; originally announced October 2018.

IV estimation of causal hazard ratio

Authors: Linbo Wang, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Torben Martinussen, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Cox's proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical models to evaluate associations of exposure with a censored failure time outcome. When confounding factors are not fully observed, the exposure hazard ratio estimated using a Cox model is subject to unmeasured confounding bias. To address this, we propose a novel approach for the identification and estimation of the causal haz… ▽ More Cox's proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical models to evaluate associations of exposure with a censored failure time outcome. When confounding factors are not fully observed, the exposure hazard ratio estimated using a Cox model is subject to unmeasured confounding bias. To address this, we propose a novel approach for the identification and estimation of the causal hazard ratio in the presence of unmeasured confounding factors. Our approach is based on a binary instrumental variable, and an additional no-interaction assumption in a first stage regression of the treatment on the IV and unmeasured confounders. We propose, to the best of our knowledge, the first consistent estimator of the (population) causal hazard ratio within an instrumental variable framework. A version of our estimator admits a closed-form representation. We derive the asymptotic distribution of our estimator, and provide a consistent estimator for its asymptotic variance. Our approach is illustrated via simulation studies and a data application. △ Less

Submitted 2 January, 2022; v1 submitted 13 July, 2018; originally announced July 2018.

Doubly robust tests of exposure effects under high-dimensional confounding

Authors: Oliver Dukes, Vahe Avagyan, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: After variable selection, standard inferential procedures for regression parameters may not be uniformly valid; there is no finite-sample size at which a standard test is guaranteed to approximately attain its nominal size. This problem is exacerbated in high-dimensional settings, where variable selection becomes unavoidable. This has prompted a flurry of activity in developing uniformly valid hyp… ▽ More After variable selection, standard inferential procedures for regression parameters may not be uniformly valid; there is no finite-sample size at which a standard test is guaranteed to approximately attain its nominal size. This problem is exacerbated in high-dimensional settings, where variable selection becomes unavoidable. This has prompted a flurry of activity in developing uniformly valid hypothesis tests for a low-dimensional regression parameter (e.g. the causal effect of an exposure A on an outcome Y) in high-dimensional models. So far there has been limited focus on model misspecification, although this is inevitable in high-dimensional settings. We propose tests of the null that are uniformly valid under sparsity conditions weaker than those typically invoked in the literature, assuming working models for the exposure and outcome are both correctly specified. When one of the models is misspecified, by amending the procedure for estimating the nuisance parameters, our tests continue to be valid; hence they are doubly robust. Our proposals are straightforward to implement using existing software for penalized maximum likelihood estimation and do not require sample-splitting. We illustrate them in simulations and an analysis of data obtained from the Ghent University Intensive Care Unit. △ Less

Submitted 6 July, 2020; v1 submitted 17 May, 2018; originally announced May 2018.

Comments: 53 pages, 5 tables

Graphical models for mediation analysis

Authors: Johan Steen, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Mediation analysis seeks to infer how much of the effect of an exposure on an outcome can be attributed to specific pathways via intermediate variables or mediators. This requires identification of so-called path-specific effects. These express how a change in exposure affects those intermediate variables (along certain pathways), and how the resulting changes in those variables in turn affect the… ▽ More Mediation analysis seeks to infer how much of the effect of an exposure on an outcome can be attributed to specific pathways via intermediate variables or mediators. This requires identification of so-called path-specific effects. These express how a change in exposure affects those intermediate variables (along certain pathways), and how the resulting changes in those variables in turn affect the outcome (along subsequent pathways). However, unlike identification of total effects, adjustment for confounding is insufficient for identification of path-specific effects because their magnitude is also determined by the extent to which individuals who experience large exposure effects on the mediator, tend to experience relatively small or large mediator effects on the outcome. This chapter therefore provides an accessible review of identification strategies under general nonparametric structural equation models (with possibly unmeasured variables), which rule out certain such dependencies. In particular, it is shown which path-specific effects can be identified under such models, and how this can be done. △ Less

Submitted 18 January, 2018; originally announced January 2018.

Instrumental variables estimation with competing risk data

Authors: Torben Martinussen, Stijn Vansteelandt

Abstract: Time-to-event analyses are often plagued by both -- possibly unmeasured -- confounding and competing risks. To deal with the former, the use of instrumental variables for effect estimation is rapidly gaining ground. We show how to make use of such variables in competing risk analyses. In particular, we show how to infer the effect of an arbitrary exposure on cause-specific hazard functions under a… ▽ More Time-to-event analyses are often plagued by both -- possibly unmeasured -- confounding and competing risks. To deal with the former, the use of instrumental variables for effect estimation is rapidly gaining ground. We show how to make use of such variables in competing risk analyses. In particular, we show how to infer the effect of an arbitrary exposure on cause-specific hazard functions under a semi-parametric model that imposes relatively weak restrictions on the observed data distribution. The proposed approach is flexible accommodating exposures and instrumental variables of arbitrary type, and enables covariate adjustment. It makes use of closed-form estimators that can be recursively calculated, and is shown to perform well in simulation studies. We also demonstrates its use in an application on the effect of mammography screening on the risk of dying from breast cancer △ Less

Submitted 30 December, 2017; originally announced January 2018.

Comments: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1608.00818