Cited by 172Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference.

Open access
Vansteelandt, Stijn, Bekaert, Maarten, Claeskens, Gerda·2012·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

Standard variable selection procedures, primarily developed for the construction of outcome prediction models, are routinely applied when assessing exposure effects in observational studies. We argue that this tradition is sub-optimal and prone to yield bias in exposure effect estimators as well as their corresponding uncertainty estimators. We weigh the pros and cons of confounder-selection procedures and propose a procedure directly targeting the quality of the exposure effect estimator. We further demonstrate that certain strategies for inferring causal effects have the desirable features (a) of producing (approximately) valid confidence intervals, even when the confounder-selection process is ignored, and (b) of being robust against certain forms of misspecification of the association of confounders with both exposure and outcome.

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 · 10.1177/0962280210387717

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • These potential sources of bias have encouraged the development of statistical approaches and datasets to perform within-family Mendelian randomization analyses, exploiting the random allocation of variants between siblings.

    “These potential sources of bias have encouraged the development of statistical approaches and datasets to perform within-family Mendelian randomization analyses, exploiting the random allocation of variants between siblings 51 .”

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

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Robins JM, Rotnitzky A. Comment on a paper by P. Bickel and J. Kwon. Statistica Sinica. 2001;11:920-936.
  2. Robins JM, Ritov Y. Toward a curse of dimensionality appropriate (CODA) asymptotic theory for semi-parametric models. Statistics in Medicine. 1997;16:285-319.
  3. Scharfstein DO, Rotnitzky A, Robins JM. Adjusting for non-ignorable drop-out using semiparametric non-response models. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1999;94:1121-1146. With discussion and a rejoinder by the authors.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vansteelandt, S., Bekaert, M., & Claeskens, G.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Vansteelandt, Stijn
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2010-11-12
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
7-30
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W2107263285
Cited by
172
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
model selection, model misspecification, causal inference, confounder selection, exposure effect estimation, confidence intervals, observational studies
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Cardiac Catheterization, Humans, Models, Statistical, Bias, Causality, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Biomedical Research

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