-
On the Distinction Between "Conditional Average Treatment Effects" (CATE) and "Individual Treatment Effects" (ITE) Under Ignorability Assumptions
Authors:
Brian G. Vegetabile
Abstract:
Recent years have seen a swell in methods that focus on estimating "individual treatment effects". These methods are often focused on the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects under ignorability assumptions. This paper hopes to draw attention to the fact that there is nothing necessarily "individual" about such effects under ignorability assumptions and isolating individual effects may req…
▽ More
Recent years have seen a swell in methods that focus on estimating "individual treatment effects". These methods are often focused on the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects under ignorability assumptions. This paper hopes to draw attention to the fact that there is nothing necessarily "individual" about such effects under ignorability assumptions and isolating individual effects may require additional assumptions. Such individual effects, more often than not, are more precisely described as "conditional average treatment effects" and confusion between the two has the potential to hinder advances in personalized and individualized effect estimation.
△ Less
Submitted 10 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
-
Balancing Higher Moments Matters for Causal Estimation: Further Context for the Results of Setodji et al. (2017)
Authors:
Melody Y. Huang,
Brian G. Vegetabile,
Lane F. Burgette,
Claude Setodji,
Beth Ann Griffin
Abstract:
We expand upon the simulation study of Setodji et al. (2017) which compared three promising balancing methods when assessing the average treatment effect on the treated for binary treatments: generalized boosted models (GBM), covariate-balancing propensity scores (CBPS), and entropy balance (EB). The study showed that GBM can outperform CBPS and EB when there are likely to be non-linear associatio…
▽ More
We expand upon the simulation study of Setodji et al. (2017) which compared three promising balancing methods when assessing the average treatment effect on the treated for binary treatments: generalized boosted models (GBM), covariate-balancing propensity scores (CBPS), and entropy balance (EB). The study showed that GBM can outperform CBPS and EB when there are likely to be non-linear associations in both the treatment assignment and outcome models and CBPS and EB are fine-tuned to obtain balance only on first order moments. We explore the potential benefit of using higher-order moments in the balancing conditions for CBPS and EB. Our findings showcase that CBPS and EB should, by default, include higher order moments and that focusing only on first moments can result in substantial bias in both CBPS and EB estimated treatment effect estimates that could be avoided by the use of higher moments.
△ Less
Submitted 8 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Adjustment for Biased Sampling Using NHANES Derived Propensity Weights
Authors:
Olivia M. Bernstein,
Brian G. Vegetabile,
Christian R. Salazar,
Joshua D. Grill,
Daniel L. Gillen
Abstract:
The Consent-to-Contact (C2C) registry at the University of California, Irvine collects data from community participants to aid in the recruitment to clinical research studies. Self-selection into the C2C likely leads to bias due in part to enrollees having more years of education relative to the US general population. Salazar et al. (2020) recently used the C2C to examine associations of race/ethn…
▽ More
The Consent-to-Contact (C2C) registry at the University of California, Irvine collects data from community participants to aid in the recruitment to clinical research studies. Self-selection into the C2C likely leads to bias due in part to enrollees having more years of education relative to the US general population. Salazar et al. (2020) recently used the C2C to examine associations of race/ethnicity with participant willingness to be contacted about research studies. To address questions about generalizability of estimated associations we estimate propensity for self-selection into the convenience sample weights using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We create a combined dataset of C2C and NHANES subjects and compare different approaches (logistic regression, covariate balancing propensity score, entropy balancing, and random forest) for estimating the probability of membership in C2C relative to NHANES. We propose methods to estimate the variance of parameter estimates that account for uncertainty that arises from estimating propensity weights. Simulation studies explore the impact of propensity weight estimation on uncertainty. We demonstrate the approach by repeating the analysis by Salazar et al. with the deduced propensity weights for the C2C subjects and contrast the results of the two analyses. This method can be implemented using our estweight package in R available on GitHub.
△ Less
Submitted 20 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
Reducing bias in difference-in-differences models using entropy balancing
Authors:
Matthew Cefalu,
Brian G. Vegetabile,
Michael Dworsky,
Christine Eibner,
Federico Girosi
Abstract:
This paper illustrates the use of entropy balancing in difference-in-differences analyses when pre-intervention outcome trends suggest a possible violation of the parallel trends assumption. We describe a set of assumptions under which weighting to balance intervention and comparison groups on pre-intervention outcome trends leads to consistent difference-in-differences estimates even when pre-int…
▽ More
This paper illustrates the use of entropy balancing in difference-in-differences analyses when pre-intervention outcome trends suggest a possible violation of the parallel trends assumption. We describe a set of assumptions under which weighting to balance intervention and comparison groups on pre-intervention outcome trends leads to consistent difference-in-differences estimates even when pre-intervention outcome trends are not parallel. Simulated results verify that entropy balancing of pre-intervention outcomes trends can remove bias when the parallel trends assumption is not directly satisfied, and thus may enable researchers to use difference-in-differences designs in a wider range of observational settings than previously acknowledged.
△ Less
Submitted 9 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
-
Nonparametric Estimation of Population Average Dose-Response Curves using Entropy Balancing Weights for Continuous Exposures
Authors:
Brian G. Vegetabile,
Beth Ann Griffin,
Donna L. Coffman,
Matthew Cefalu,
Daniel F. McCaffrey
Abstract:
Weighted estimators are commonly used for estimating exposure effects in observational settings to establish causal relations. These estimators have a long history of development when the exposure of interest is binary and where the weights are typically functions of an estimated propensity score. Recent developments in optimization-based estimators for constructing weights in binary exposure sett…
▽ More
Weighted estimators are commonly used for estimating exposure effects in observational settings to establish causal relations. These estimators have a long history of development when the exposure of interest is binary and where the weights are typically functions of an estimated propensity score. Recent developments in optimization-based estimators for constructing weights in binary exposure settings, such as those based on entropy balancing, have shown more promise in estimating treatment effects than those methods that focus on the direct estimation of the propensity score using likelihood-based methods. This paper explores recent developments of entropy balancing methods to continuous exposure settings and the estimation of population dose-response curves using nonparametric estimation combined with entropy balancing weights, focusing on factors that would be important to applied researchers in medical or health services research. The methods developed here are applied to data from a study assessing the effect of non-randomized components of an evidence-based substance use treatment program on emotional and substance use clinical outcomes.
△ Less
Submitted 5 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
