ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Bayesian causal inference offers a principled approach to policy evaluation of proposed interventions on mediators or time-varying exposures. We outline a general approach to the estimation of causal quantities for settings with time-varying confounding, such as exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounders. We further extend this approach to propose two Bayesian data fusion (BDF) methods for unmeasured confounding. Using informative priors on quantities relating to the confounding bias parameters, our methods incorporate data from an external source where the confounder is measured in order to make inferences about causal estimands in the main study population. We present results from a simulation study comparing our data fusion methods to two common frequentist correction methods for unmeasured confounding bias in the mediation setting. We also demonstrate our method with an investigation of the role of stage at cancer diagnosis in contributing to Black-White colorectal cancer survival disparities.
The Cox regression model and its associated hazard ratio (HR) are frequently used for summarizing the effect of treatments on time to event outcomes. However, the HRs interpretation strongly depends on the assumed underlying survival model. The chall
In employing spatial regression models for counts, we usually meet two issues. First, ignoring the inherent collinearity between covariates and the spatial effect would lead to causal inferences. Second, real count data usually reveal over or under-d
Data-driven individualized decision making has recently received increasing research interests. Most existing methods rely on the assumption of no unmeasured confounding, which unfortunately cannot be ensured in practice especially in observational s
Although the exposure can be randomly assigned in studies of mediation effects, any form of direct intervention on the mediator is often infeasible. As a result, unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding can seldom be ruled out. We propose semiparametr
Establishing cause-effect relationships from observational data often relies on untestable assumptions. It is crucial to know whether, and to what extent, the conclusions drawn from non-experimental studies are robust to potential unmeasured confound