Cited by 65Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Causal Reasoning from Longitudinal Data*

Arjas, Elja, Parner, Jan·2004·Scandinavian Journal of Statistics

Abstract

Abstract. This paper reviews some of the key statistical ideas that are encountered when trying to find empirical support to causal interpretations and conclusions, by applying statistical methods on experimental or observational longitudinal data. In such data, typically a collection of individuals are followed over time, then each one has registered a sequence of covariate measurements along with values of control variables that in the analysis are to be interpreted as causes, and finally the individual outcomes or responses are reported. Particular attention is given to the potentially important problem of confounding. We provide conditions under which, at least in principle, unconfounded estimation of the causal effects can be accomplished. Our approach for dealing with causal problems is entirely probabilistic, and we apply Bayesian ideas and techniques to deal with the corresponding statistical inference. In particular, we use the general framework of marked point processes for setting up the probability models, and consider posterior predictive distributions as providing the natural summary measures for assessing the causal effects. We also draw connections to relevant recent work in this area, notably to Judea Pearl's formulations based on graphical models and his calculus of so‐called do‐probabilities. Two examples illustrating different aspects of causal reasoning are discussed in detail.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9469.2004.02-134.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The truncated factorization formula is not restricted to interventions on a single variable; it applies to simultaneous or sequential interventions, such as time-varying treatments with time-varying confounders.

    “Note also that the truncated factorization formula is not restricted to interventions on a single variable; it is applicable to simultaneous or sequential interventions such as those invoked in the analysis of time varying treatment with time varying confounders (Robins, 1986; Arjas and Parner, 2004).”

    From Causal inference in statistics: An overview (2009) · cites this paper as Arjas and Parner, 2004

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 65

Authors
Arjas, E., & Parner, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Arjas, Elja
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Statistics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-05-19
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
171-187
ISSN
  • 0303-6898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9469
OpenAlex
W2064857165
Cited by
65
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
causal inference, longitudinal data, confounding, causal effects, Bayesian inference, marked point processes, posterior predictive distribution, probabilistic graphical models, do-calculus

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