اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدOn Mendelian Randomization Mixed-Scale Treatment Effect Robust Identification (MR MiSTERI) and Estimation for Causal Inference
83
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Standard Mendelian randomization analysis can produce biased results if the genetic variant defining the instrumental variable (IV) is confounded and/or has a horizontal pleiotropic effect on the outcome of interest not mediated by the treatment. We provide novel identification conditions for the causal effect of a treatment in presence of unmeasured confounding, by leveraging an invalid IV for which both the IV independence and exclusion restriction assumptions may be violated. The proposed Mendelian Randomization Mixed-Scale Treatment Effect Robust Identification (MR MiSTERI) approach relies on (i) an assumption that the treatment effect does not vary with the invalid IV on the additive scale; and (ii) that the selection bias due to confounding does not vary with the invalid IV on the odds ratio scale; and (iii) that the residual variance for the outcome is heteroscedastic and thus varies with the invalid IV. We formally establish that their conjunction can identify a causal effect even with an invalid IV subject to pleiotropy. MiSTERI is shown to be particularly advantageous in presence of pervasive heterogeneity of pleiotropic effects on additive scale, a setting in which two recently proposed robust estimation methods MR GxE and MR GENIUS can be severely biased. In order to incorporate multiple, possibly correlated and weak IVs, a common challenge in MR studies, we develop a MAny Weak Invalid Instruments (MR MaWII MiSTERI) approach for strengthened identification and improved accuracy MaWII MiSTERI is shown to be robust to horizontal pleiotropy, violation of IV independence assumption and weak IV bias. Both simulation studies and real data analysis results demonstrate the robustness of the proposed MR MiSTERI methods.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Mendelian randomization (MR) is a popular instrumental variable (IV) approach, in which one or several genetic markers serve as IVs that can sometimes be leveraged to recover valid inferences about a given exposure-outcome causal association subject
to unmeasured confounding. A key IV identification condition known as the exclusion restriction states that the IV cannot have a direct effect on the outcome which is not mediated by the exposure in view. In MR studies, such an assumption requires an unrealistic level of prior knowledge about the mechanism by which genetic markers causally affect the outcome. As a result, possible violation of the exclusion restriction can seldom be ruled out in practice. To address this concern, we introduce a new class of IV estimators which are robust to violation of the exclusion restriction under data generating mechanisms commonly assumed in MR literature. The proposed approach named MR G-Estimation under No Interaction with Unmeasured Selection (MR GENIUS) improves on Robins G-estimation by making it robust to both additive unmeasured confounding and violation of the exclusion restriction assumption. In certain key settings, MR GENIUS reduces to the estimator of Lewbel (2012) which is widely used in econometrics but appears largely unappreciated in MR literature. More generally, MR GENIUS generalizes Lewbels estimator to several key practical MR settings, including multiplicative causal models for binary outcome, multiplicative and odds ratio exposure models, case control study design and censored survival outcomes.
Covariate-adaptive randomization schemes such as the minimization and stratified permuted blocks are often applied in clinical trials to balance treatment assignments across prognostic factors. The existing theoretical developments on inference after
covariate-adaptive randomization are mostly limited to situations where a correct model between the response and covariates can be specified or the randomization method has well-understood properties. Based on stratification with covariate levels utilized in randomization and a further adjusting for covariates not used in randomization, in this article we propose several estimators for model free inference on average treatment effect defined as the difference between response means under two treatments. We establish asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators under all popular covariate-adaptive randomization schemes including the minimization whose theoretical property is unclear, and we show that the asymptotic distributions are invariant with respect to covariate-adaptive randomization methods. Consistent variance estimators are constructed for asymptotic inference. Asymptotic relative efficiencies and finite sample properties of estimators are also studied. We recommend using one of our proposed estimators for valid and model free inference after covariate-adaptive randomization.
Mendelian randomization (MR) has become a popular approach to study causal effects by using genetic variants as instrumental variables. We propose a new MR method, GENIUS-MAWII, which simultaneously addresses the two salient phenomena that adversely
affect MR analyses: many weak instruments and widespread horizontal pleiotropy. Similar to MR GENIUS citep{Tchetgen2019_GENIUS}, we achieve identification of the treatment effect by leveraging heteroscedasticity of the exposure. We then derive the class of influence functions of the treatment effect, based on which, we construct a continuous updating estimator and establish its consistency and asymptotic normality under a many weak invalid instruments asymptotic regime by developing novel semiparametric theory. We also provide a measure of weak identification and graphical diagnostic tool. We demonstrate in simulations that GENIUS-MAWII has clear advantages in the presence of directional or correlated horizontal pleiotropy compared to other methods. We apply our method to study the effect of body mass index on systolic blood pressure using UK Biobank.
Analyses of environmental phenomena often are concerned with understanding unlikely events such as floods, heatwaves, droughts or high concentrations of pollutants. Yet the majority of the causal inference literature has focused on modelling means, r
ather than (possibly high) quantiles. We define a general estimator of the population quantile treatment (or exposure) effects (QTE) -- the weighted QTE (WQTE) -- of which the population QTE is a special case, along with a general class of balancing weights incorporating the propensity score. Asymptotic properties of the proposed WQTE estimators are derived. We further propose and compare propensity score regression and two weighted methods based on these balancing weights to understand the causal effect of an exposure on quantiles, allowing for the exposure to be binary, discrete or continuous. Finite sample behavior of the three estimators is studied in simulation. The proposed methods are applied to data taken from the Bavarian Danube catchment area to estimate the 95% QTE of phosphorus on copper concentration in the river.
Missing attributes are ubiquitous in causal inference, as they are in most applied statistical work. In this paper, we consider various sets of assumptions under which causal inference is possible despite missing attributes and discuss corresponding
approaches to average treatment effect estimation, including generalized propensity score methods and multiple imputation. Across an extensive simulation study, we show that no single method systematically out-performs others. We find, however, that doubly robust modifications of standard methods for average treatment effect estimation with missing data repeatedly perform better than their non-doubly robust baselines; for example, doubly robust generalized propensity score methods beat inverse-weighting with the generalized propensity score. This finding is reinforced in an analysis of an observations study on the effect on mortality of tranexamic acid administration among patients with traumatic brain injury in the context of critical care management. Here, doubly robust estimators recover confidence intervals that are consistent with evidence from randomized trials, whereas non-doubly robust estimators do not.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
