Cited by 40Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Analytic bounds on causal risk differences in directed acyclic graphs involving three observed binary variables

Open access
Kaufman, Sol, Kaufman, Jay S., MacLehose, Richard F.·2009·Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference

Abstract

We apply a linear programming approach which uses the causal risk difference (RD(C)) as the objective function and provides minimum and maximum values that RD(C) can achieve under any set of linear constraints on the potential response type distribution. We consider two scenarios involving binary exposure X, covariate Z and outcome Y. In the first, Z is not affected by X, and is a potential confounder of the causal effect of X on Y. In the second, Z is affected by X and intermediate in the causal pathway between X and Y. For each scenario we consider various linear constraints corresponding to the presence or absence of arcs in the associated directed acyclic graph (DAG), monotonicity assumptions, and presence or absence of additive-scale interactions. We also estimate Z-stratum-specific bounds when Z is a potential effect measure modifier and bounds for both controlled and natural direct effects when Z is affected by X. In the absence of any additional constraints deriving from background knowledge, the well-known bounds on RDc are duplicated: -Pr(Y not equalX) </= RD(C) </= Pr(Y=X). These bounds have unit width, but can be narrowed by background knowledge-based assumptions. We provide and compare bounds and bound widths for various combinations of assumptions in the two scenarios and apply these bounds to real data from two studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jspi.2009.03.024

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Greenland derived analytic results and approximations for the relative size of endogenous selection bias and confounding bias in DAGs with binary variables.

    “Greenland (2003), in particular, has derived useful analytic results and approximations for the relative size of endogenous selection bias and confounding bias in DAGs with binary variables (see also Kaufman et al. 2009).”

    From Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable (2014) · cites this paper as Kaufman et al. 2009

    Section 2.2 describes analytic bounds for causal risk differences in DAGs with binary variables, supporting the general connection made by “see also Kaufman et al. 2009” (page unavailable). The paper does not report approximations comparing the relative size of endogenous selection bias and confounding bias; the searched passages address causal-effect bounds instead. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Balke AA 1995 Probabilistic Counterfactuals: Semantics, Computation, and Applications. Technical Report R-242, Cognitive Systems Laboratory Dept of Computer Science University of California Los Angeles Ph.D. dissertation
  2. Brookhart MA Wang PS Solomon DH Schneeweiss S 2006 Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable Epidemiology 17 268 75 16617275 PMC2715942
  3. Cole SR Hernán MA 2002 Fallibility in estimating direct effects Int J Epidem 31 163 5 11914314
  4. Costello EJ Compton SN Keeler G Angold A 2003 Relationships between poverty and psychopathology: a natural experiment JAMA 290 2023 9 14559956
  5. Flanders WD Khoury MJ 1990 Indirect assessment of confounding: Graphic description and limits on effect of adjusting for covariates Epidemiology 1 239 46 2081259
  6. Greenland S Robins JM 1986 Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding Int J Epidemiol 15 433 9 3771081
  7. Kaufman S Kaufman JS Maclehose RF Greenland S Poole C 2005 Improved estimation of controlled direct effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding of intermediate variables Stat Med 24 1683 702 15742358
  8. Lin DY Psaty BM Kronmal RA 1998 Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies Biometrics 54 948 63 9750244
  9. MacLehose RF Kaufman S Kauman JS Poole C 2005 Bounding causal effects under uncontrolled confounding using counterfactuals Epidemiology 16 548 55 15951674
  10. Manski C 1990 Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 80 319 23
  11. Pearl J 2000 Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press
  12. Petersen ML Sinisi SE van der Laan MJ 2006 Estimation of direct causal effects Epidemiology 17 276 84 16617276
  13. Robins JM 2003 Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects Green P Hjort NL Richardson S Highly Structured Stochastic Systems New York Oxford University Press 70 82
  14. Robins JM Greenland S 1992 Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects Epidemiology 3 143 55 1576220
  15. Rothman KJ Greenland S 1998 Basic methods for sensitivity analysis and external adjustment. Chapter 19 Rothman KJ Greenland S Modern epidemiology Second edition Philadelphia Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
  16. Sommer A Zeger SL 1991 On estimating efficacy from clinical-trials Stat Med 10 45 52 2006355

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaufman, S., Kaufman, J. S., & MacLehose, R. F.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kaufman, Sol
  • Kaufman, Jay S.
Venue
Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
139
Issue
10
Pages
3473-3487
ISSN
0378-3758 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982364633
Cited by
40
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD039746)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
directed acyclic graphs, linear programming bounds, binary exposure, controlled direct effect, natural direct effect, monotonicity assumption, prior knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review