Hidden yet quantifiable: A lower bound for confounding strength using randomized trials
2312.03871
0
0
➖
Abstract
In the era of fast-paced precision medicine, observational studies play a major role in properly evaluating new treatments in clinical practice. Yet, unobserved confounding can significantly compromise causal conclusions drawn from non-randomized data. We propose a novel strategy that leverages randomized trials to quantify unobserved confounding. First, we design a statistical test to detect unobserved confounding with strength above a given threshold. Then, we use the test to estimate an asymptotically valid lower bound on the unobserved confounding strength. We evaluate the power and validity of our statistical test on several synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets. Further, we show how our lower bound can correctly identify the absence and presence of unobserved confounding in a real-world setting.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses how observational studies can be used to evaluate new treatments in clinical practice, despite the risk of unobserved confounding compromising causal conclusions.
- The researchers propose a novel strategy that leverages randomized trials to quantify the strength of unobserved confounding.
- They develop a statistical test to detect unobserved confounding above a given threshold, and use this test to estimate a lower bound on the unobserved confounding strength.
- The proposed approach is evaluated on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets, and its ability to correctly identify the presence or absence of unobserved confounding is demonstrated in a real-world setting.
Plain English Explanation
In the fast-paced world of precision medicine, observational studies (where patients are not randomly assigned to treatments) play a crucial role in evaluating new treatments in real-world clinical practice. However, the presence of unobserved factors that influence both the treatment decision and the outcome (known as unobserved confounding) can significantly compromise our ability to draw reliable conclusions about the true effects of the treatment.
To address this challenge, the researchers have developed a novel statistical technique that leverages data from randomized controlled trials (where patients are randomly assigned to treatments) to quantify the strength of unobserved confounding. This involves designing a test that can detect the presence of unobserved confounding above a certain level of strength, and then using this test to estimate a lower bound on the actual strength of the unobserved confounding.
By applying this approach to both simulated and real-world data, the researchers have shown that it can accurately identify situations where unobserved confounding is present and affecting the conclusions, as well as situations where it is not a significant issue. This is an important step in improving the reliability of observational studies and enabling more accurate evaluation of new treatments in clinical practice.
Technical Explanation
The researchers propose a novel strategy that leverages randomized trials to quantify the strength of unobserved confounding in observational studies. They first design a statistical test to detect unobserved confounding with strength above a given threshold. This test is based on the idea that if there is no unobserved confounding, the difference in treatment effects between the randomized and observational data should be zero.
The researchers then use this test to estimate an asymptotically valid lower bound on the unobserved confounding strength. This is done by finding the smallest level of unobserved confounding strength that would be detected by the statistical test with high probability.
The power and validity of the proposed statistical test are evaluated on several synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets, where the true unobserved confounding strength is known. The results show that the test can reliably detect the presence of unobserved confounding above the specified threshold.
Additionally, the researchers demonstrate the ability of their lower bound estimate to correctly identify the absence and presence of unobserved confounding in a real-world setting. This is an important application, as it allows researchers to quantify the potential impact of unobserved confounding and make more informed decisions about the reliability of their observational studies.
Critical Analysis
The researchers have developed a thoughtful and rigorous approach to addressing the challenge of unobserved confounding in observational studies. By leveraging data from randomized trials, they have proposed a novel way to quantify the strength of unobserved confounding, which is a significant advancement over simply acknowledging its presence.
One potential limitation of the proposed method is that it relies on the availability of high-quality randomized trial data, which may not always be feasible or accessible, especially for rare or complex medical conditions. Additionally, the researchers acknowledge that their lower bound estimate may be conservative, and further research is needed to understand the tightness of this bound.
Another area for further exploration is the potential impact of model misspecification on the performance of the proposed statistical test. While the researchers have evaluated their approach on several synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets, it would be valuable to assess its robustness to more realistic scenarios, where the underlying assumptions may not be fully met.
Despite these minor caveats, the researchers' work represents an important contribution to the field of causal inference and observational study design. By providing a principled way to quantify unobserved confounding, this research can help researchers and clinicians make more informed decisions about the reliability and generalizability of their findings, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel strategy for addressing the challenge of unobserved confounding in observational studies, which is a critical issue in the era of fast-paced precision medicine. The researchers have developed a statistical test to detect the presence of unobserved confounding above a certain threshold, and used this test to estimate a lower bound on the strength of the unobserved confounding.
By evaluating their approach on both simulated and real-world data, the researchers have demonstrated its ability to accurately identify the presence or absence of unobserved confounding, a crucial step in improving the reliability of observational studies. This work represents an important advancement in the field of causal inference, and has the potential to enable more accurate evaluation of new treatments in clinical practice, ultimately leading to better patient care and outcomes.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤯
Simultaneous inference for generalized linear models with unmeasured confounders
Jin-Hong Du, Larry Wasserman, Kathryn Roeder
0
0
Tens of thousands of simultaneous hypothesis tests are routinely performed in genomic studies to identify differentially expressed genes. However, due to unmeasured confounders, many standard statistical approaches may be substantially biased. This paper investigates the large-scale hypothesis testing problem for multivariate generalized linear models in the presence of confounding effects. Under arbitrary confounding mechanisms, we propose a unified statistical estimation and inference framework that harnesses orthogonal structures and integrates linear projections into three key stages. It begins by disentangling marginal and uncorrelated confounding effects to recover the latent coefficients. Subsequently, latent factors and primary effects are jointly estimated through lasso-type optimization. Finally, we incorporate projected and weighted bias-correction steps for hypothesis testing. Theoretically, we establish the identification conditions of various effects and non-asymptotic error bounds. We show effective Type-I error control of asymptotic $z$-tests as sample and response sizes approach infinity. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the proposed method controls the false discovery rate by the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure and is more powerful than alternative methods. By comparing single-cell RNA-seq counts from two groups of samples, we demonstrate the suitability of adjusting confounding effects when significant covariates are absent from the model.
4/23/2024
✅
Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding
Yewon Byun, Dylan Sam, Michael Oberst, Zachary C. Lipton, Bryan Wilder
0
0
The presence of inequity is a fundamental problem in the outcomes of decision-making systems, especially when human lives are at stake. Yet, estimating notions of unfairness or inequity is difficult, particularly if they rely on hard-to-measure concepts such as risk. Such measurements of risk can be accurately obtained when no unobserved confounders have jointly influenced past decisions and outcomes. However, in the real world, this assumption rarely holds. In this paper, we show a surprising result that one can still give meaningful bounds on treatment rates to high-risk individuals, even when entirely eliminating or relaxing the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed. We use the fact that in many real-world settings (e.g., the release of a new treatment) we have data from prior to any allocation to derive unbiased estimates of risk. This result is of immediate practical interest: we can audit unfair outcomes of existing decision-making systems in a principled manner. For instance, in a real-world study of Paxlovid allocation, our framework provably identifies that observed racial inequity cannot be explained by unobserved confounders of the same strength as important observed covariates.
4/26/2024
📊
Detecting critical treatment effect bias in small subgroups
Piersilvio De Bartolomeis, Javier Abad, Konstantin Donhauser, Fanny Yang
0
0
Randomized trials are considered the gold standard for making informed decisions in medicine, yet they often lack generalizability to the patient populations in clinical practice. Observational studies, on the other hand, cover a broader patient population but are prone to various biases. Thus, before using an observational study for decision-making, it is crucial to benchmark its treatment effect estimates against those derived from a randomized trial. We propose a novel strategy to benchmark observational studies beyond the average treatment effect. First, we design a statistical test for the null hypothesis that the treatment effects estimated from the two studies, conditioned on a set of relevant features, differ up to some tolerance. We then estimate an asymptotically valid lower bound on the maximum bias strength for any subgroup in the observational study. Finally, we validate our benchmarking strategy in a real-world setting and show that it leads to conclusions that align with established medical knowledge.
4/30/2024
🛸
Robust Design and Evaluation of Predictive Algorithms under Unobserved Confounding
Ashesh Rambachan, Amanda Coston, Edward Kennedy
0
0
Predictive algorithms inform consequential decisions in settings where the outcome is selectively observed given choices made by human decision makers. We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units conditional on observed covariates and identified nuisance parameters, formalizing popular empirical strategies for imputing missing data such as proxy outcomes and instrumental variables. We develop debiased machine learning estimators for the bounds on a large class of predictive performance estimands, such as the conditional likelihood of the outcome, a predictive algorithm's mean square error, true/false positive rate, and many others, under these assumptions. In an administrative dataset from a large Australian financial institution, we illustrate how varying assumptions on unobserved confounding leads to meaningful changes in default risk predictions and evaluations of credit scores across sensitive groups.
5/21/2024