Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMeasurement errors in the binary instrumental variable model
74
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Zhichao Jiang
Publication date
2019
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Instrumental variable methods can identify causal effects even when the treatment and outcome are confounded. We study the problem of imperfect measurements of the binary instrumental variable, treatment or outcome. We first consider non-differential measurement errors, that is, the mis-measured variable does not depend on other variables given its true value. We show that the measurement error of the instrumental variable does not bias the estimate, the measurement error of the treatment biases the estimate away from zero, and the measurement error of the outcome biases the estimate toward zero. Moreover, we derive sharp bounds on the causal effects without additional assumptions. These bounds are informative because they exclude zero. We then consider differential measurement errors, and focus on sensitivity analyses in those settings.
rate research
Read More
Instrumental variables are widely used to deal with unmeasured confounding in observational studies and imperfect randomized controlled trials. In these studies, researchers often target the so-called local average treatment effect as it is identifiable under mild conditions. In this paper, we consider estimation of the local average treatment effect under the binary instrumental variable model. We discuss the challenges for causal estimation with a binary outcome, and show that surprisingly, it can be more difficult than the case with a continuous outcome. We propose novel modeling and estimating procedures that improve upon existing proposals in terms of model congeniality, interpretability, robustness or efficiency. Our approach is illustrated via simulation studies and a real data analysis.
Instrumental variables (IV) are a useful tool for estimating causal effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding. IV methods are well developed for uncensored outcomes, particularly for structural linear equation models, where simple two-stage estimation schemes are available. The extension of these methods to survival settings is challenging, partly because of the nonlinearity of the popular survival regression models and partly because of the complications associated with right censoring or other survival features. We develop a simple causal hazard ratio estimator in a proportional hazards model with right censored data. The method exploits a special characterization of IV which enables the use of an intuitive inverse weighting scheme that is generally applicable to more complex survival settings with left truncation, competing risks, or recurrent events. We rigorously establish the asymptotic properties of the estimators, and provide plug-in variance estimators. The proposed method can be implemented in standard software, and is evaluated through extensive simulation studies. We apply the proposed IV method to a data set from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial to delineate the causal effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer survival which may be confounded by informative noncompliance with the assigned screening regimen.
This paper considers the instrumental variable quantile regression model (Chernozhukov and Hansen, 2005, 2013) with a binary endogenous treatment. It offers two identification results when the treatment status is not directly observed. The first result is that, remarkably, the reduced-form quantile regression of the outcome variable on the instrumental variable provides a lower bound on the structural quantile treatment effect under the stochastic monotonicity condition (Small and Tan, 2007; DiNardo and Lee, 2011). This result is relevant, not only when the treatment variable is subject to misclassification, but also when any measurement of the treatment variable is not available. The second result is for the structural quantile function when the treatment status is measured with error; I obtain the sharp identified set by deriving moment conditions under widely-used assumptions on the measurement error. Furthermore, I propose an inference method in the presence of other covariates.
The primary analysis of randomized screening trials for cancer typically adheres to the intention-to-screen principle, measuring cancer-specific mortality reductions between screening and control arms. These mortality reductions result from a combination of the screening regimen, screening technology and the effect of the early, screening-induced, treatment. This motivates addressing these different aspects separately. Here we are interested in the causal effect of early versus delayed treatments on cancer mortality among the screening-detectable subgroup, which under certain assumptions is estimable from conventional randomized screening trial using instrumental variable type methods. To define the causal effect of interest, we formulate a simplified structural multi-state model for screening trials, based on a hypothetical intervention trial where screening detected individuals would be randomized into early versus delayed treatments. The cancer-specific mortality reductions after screening detection are quantified by a cause-specific hazard ratio. For this, we propose two estimators, based on an estimating equation and a likelihood expression. The methods extend existing instrumental variable methods for time-to-event and competing risks outcomes to time-dependent intermediate variables. Using the multi-state model as the basis of a data generating mechanism, we investigate the performance of the new estimators through simulation studies. In addition, we illustrate the proposed method in the context of CT screening for lung cancer using the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) data.
Two-stage least squares (TSLS) estimators and variants thereof are widely used to infer the effect of an exposure on an outcome using instrumental variables (IVs). They belong to a wider class of two-stage IV estimators, which are based on fitting a conditional mean model for the exposure, and then using the fitted exposure values along with the covariates as predictors in a linear model for the outcome. We show that standard TSLS estimators enjoy greater robustness to model misspecification than more general two-stage estimators. However, by potentially using a wrong exposure model, e.g. when the exposure is binary, they tend to be inefficient. In view of this, we study double-robust G-estimators instead. These use working models for the exposure, IV and outcome but only require correct specification of either the IV model or the outcome model to guarantee consistent estimation of the exposure effect. As the finite sample performance of the locally efficient G-estimator can be poor, we further develop G-estimation procedures with improved efficiency and robustness properties under misspecification of some or all working models. Simulation studies and a data analysis demonstrate drastic improvements, with remarkably good performance even when one or more working models are misspecified.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
