Causal Reasoning from Longitudinal Data*
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- ORCID
- 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