-
Bridged treatment comparisons: an illustrative application in HIV treatment
Authors:
Paul N Zivich,
Stephen R Cole,
Jessie K Edwards,
Bonnie E Shook-Sa,
Alexander Breskin,
Michael G Hudgens
Abstract:
Comparisons of treatments, interventions, or exposures are of central interest in epidemiology, but direct comparisons are not always possible due to practical or ethical reasons. Here, we detail a fusion approach to compare treatments across studies. The motivating example entails comparing the risk of the composite outcome of death, AIDS, or greater than a 50% CD4 cell count decline in people wi…
▽ More
Comparisons of treatments, interventions, or exposures are of central interest in epidemiology, but direct comparisons are not always possible due to practical or ethical reasons. Here, we detail a fusion approach to compare treatments across studies. The motivating example entails comparing the risk of the composite outcome of death, AIDS, or greater than a 50% CD4 cell count decline in people with HIV when assigned triple versus mono antiretroviral therapy, using data from the AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG) 175 (mono versus dual therapy) and ACTG 320 (dual versus triple therapy). We review a set of identification assumptions and estimate the risk difference using an inverse probability weighting estimator that leverages the shared trial arms (dual therapy). A fusion diagnostic based on comparing the shared arms is proposed that may indicate violation of the identification assumptions. Application of the data fusion estimator and diagnostic to the ACTG trials indicates triple therapy results in a reduction in risk compared to monotherapy in individuals with baseline CD4 counts between 50 and 300 cells/mm$^3$. Bridged treatment comparisons address questions that none of the constituent data sources could address alone, but valid fusion-based inference requires careful consideration of the underlying assumptions.
△ Less
Submitted 22 August, 2023; v1 submitted 9 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators
Authors:
Paul N Zivich,
Alexander Breskin
Abstract:
Modern causal inference methods allow machine learning to be used to weaken parametric modeling assumptions. However, the use of machine learning may result in complications for inference. Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties.
We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several different estimators for the average causal ef…
▽ More
Modern causal inference methods allow machine learning to be used to weaken parametric modeling assumptions. However, the use of machine learning may result in complications for inference. Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties.
We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several different estimators for the average causal effect (ACE). The data generating mechanisms for the simulated treatment and outcome included log-transforms, polynomial terms, and discontinuities. We compared singly-robust estimators (g-computation, inverse probability weighting) and doubly-robust estimators (augmented inverse probability weighting, targeted maximum likelihood estimation). Nuisance functions were estimated with parametric models and ensemble machine learning, separately. We further assessed doubly-robust cross-fit estimators.
With correctly specified parametric models, all of the estimators were unbiased and confidence intervals achieved nominal coverage. When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage.
Due to the difficulty of properly specifying parametric models in high dimensional data, doubly-robust estimators with ensemble learning and cross-fitting may be the preferred approach for estimation of the ACE in most epidemiologic studies. However, these approaches may require larger sample sizes to avoid finite-sample issues.
△ Less
Submitted 28 August, 2020; v1 submitted 21 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
-
DAG With Omitted Objects Displayed (DAGWOOD): A framework for revealing causal assumptions in DAGs
Authors:
Noah A Haber,
Mollie E Wood,
Sarah Wieten,
Alexander Breskin
Abstract:
Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are frequently used in epidemiology as a method to encode causal inference assumptions. We propose the DAGWOOD framework to bring many of those encoded assumptions to the forefront.
DAGWOOD combines a root DAG (the DAG in the proposed analysis) and a set of branch DAGs (alternative hidden assumptions to the root DAG). All branch DAGs share a common ruleset, and mus…
▽ More
Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are frequently used in epidemiology as a method to encode causal inference assumptions. We propose the DAGWOOD framework to bring many of those encoded assumptions to the forefront.
DAGWOOD combines a root DAG (the DAG in the proposed analysis) and a set of branch DAGs (alternative hidden assumptions to the root DAG). All branch DAGs share a common ruleset, and must 1) change the root DAG, 2) be a valid DAG, and either 3a) change the minimally sufficient adjustment set or 3b) change the number of frontdoor paths. Branch DAGs comprise a list of assumptions which must be justified as negligible. We define two types of branch DAGs: exclusion branch DAGs add a single- or bidirectional pathway between two nodes in the root DAG (e.g. direct pathways and colliders), while misdirection branch DAGs represent alternative pathways that could be drawn between objects (e.g., creating a collider by reversing the direction of causation for a controlled confounder).
The DAGWOOD framework 1) organizes causal model assumptions, 2) reinforces best DAG practices, 3) provides a framework for evaluation of causal models, and 4) can be used for generating causal models.
△ Less
Submitted 23 November, 2021; v1 submitted 8 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
