Cited by 434Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

A New Criterion for Confounder Selection

Open access
VanderWeele, Tyler J., Shpitser, Ilya·2011·Biometrics

Abstract

We propose a new criterion for confounder selection when the underlying causal structure is unknown and only limited knowledge is available. We assume all covariates being considered are pretreatment variables and that for each covariate it is known (i) whether the covariate is a cause of treatment, and (ii) whether the covariate is a cause of the outcome. The causal relationships the covariates have with one another is assumed unknown. We propose that control be made for any covariate that is either a cause of treatment or of the outcome or both. We show that irrespective of the actual underlying causal structure, if any subset of the observed covariates suffices to control for confounding then the set of covariates chosen by our criterion will also suffice. We show that other, commonly used, criteria for confounding control do not have this property. We use formal theory concerning causal diagrams to prove our result but the application of the result does not rely on familiarity with causal diagrams. An investigator simply need ask, "Is the covariate a cause of the treatment?" and "Is the covariate a cause of the outcome?" If the answer to either question is "yes" then the covariate is included for confounder control. We discuss some additional covariate selection results that preserve unconfoundedness and that may be of interest when used with our criterion.

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 · 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01619.x

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • In Figure 13c, no set of pre-treatment controls is sufficient to identify the causal effect of T on Y, so the VanderWeele and Shpitser rule does not apply.

    “In short, there exists no set of pre-treatment controls that is sufficient for identifying the causal effect of T on Y, and hence the VanderWeele & Shpitser (2011) rule does not apply.”

    From Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable (2014) · cites this paper as VanderWeele & Shpitser 2011

  • If the analyst assumes that controlling for some combination of observed pre-treatment variables is sufficient to identify the total causal effect, then it is sufficient to control for all variables that cause treatment or outcome or both.

    “If the analyst is willing to assume that controlling for some combination of observed pre-treatment variables is sufficient to identify the total causal effect of treatment, then it is sufficient to control for all variables that (directly or indirectly) cause treatment or outcome or both (VanderWeele & Shpitser 2011).”

    From Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable (2014) · cites this paper as VanderWeele & Shpitser 2011

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: 2

  1. Sekhon JS 2010 Matching: Multivariate and propensity score matching with balance optimization Journal of Statistical Software in press
  2. Shrier I 2008 Letter to the editor Statistics in Medicine 27 2740 2741 18069729

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VanderWeele, T. J., & Shpitser, I.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
VanderWeele, Tyler J.
Venue
Biometrics
Published
2011-05-31
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
1406-1413
ISSN
0006-341X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025309870
Cited by
434
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biometrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI104459)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES017876, R01ES017876, R56ES017876)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03HD060696, HD060696)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
confounder selection, confounding adjustment, causal graphs, unconfoundedness, covariate selection, causal structure
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Biometry, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted, Risk Factors, Models, Statistical, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Confidence Intervals, Statistical Distributions, Proportional Hazards Models, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Risk Assessment

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