Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

22 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Instrumental variables as bias amplifiers with general outcome and confounding.

ABSTRACT: Drawing causal inference with observational studies is the central pillar of many disciplines. One sufficient condition for identifying the causal effect is that the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded conditional on the observed covariates. It is often believed that the more covariates we condition on, the more plausible this unconfoundedness assumption is. This belief has had a huge impact on practical causal inference, suggesting that we should adjust for all pretreatment covariates. However, when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment and outcome, estimators adjusting for some pretreatment covariate might have greater bias than estimators without adjusting for this covariate. This kind of covariate is called a bias amplifier, and includes instrumental variables that are independent of the confounder, and affect the outcome only through the treatment. Previously, theoretical results for this phenomenon have been established only for linear models. We fill in this gap in the literature by providing a general theory, showing that this phenomenon happens under a wide class of models satisfying certain monotonicity assumptions. We further show that when the treatment follows an additive or multiplicative model conditional on the instrumental variable and the confounder, these monotonicity assumptions can be interpreted as the signs of the arrows of the causal diagrams.

SUBMITTER: Ding P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5636691 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Toward a clearer portrayal of confounding bias in instrumental variable applications.

Project description:Recommendations for reporting instrumental variable analyses often include presenting the balance of covariates across levels of the proposed instrument and levels of the treatment. However, such presentation can be misleading as relatively small imbalances among covariates across levels of the instrument can result in greater bias because of bias amplification. We introduce bias plots and bias component plots as alternative tools for understanding biases in instrumental variable analyses. Using previously published data on proposed preference-based, geography-based, and distance-based instruments, we demonstrate why presenting covariate balance alone can be problematic, and how bias component plots can provide more accurate context for bias from omitting a covariate from an instrumental variable versus non-instrumental variable analysis. These plots can also provide relevant comparisons of different proposed instruments considered in the same data. Adaptable code is provided for creating the plots.

| S-EPMC4673662 | biostudies-literature

General Control Functions for Causal Effect Estimation from Instrumental Variables.

Project description:Causal effect estimation relies on separating the variation in the outcome into parts due to the treatment and due to the confounders. To achieve this separation, practitioners often use external sources of randomness that only influence the treatment called instrumental variables (IVs). We study variables constructed from treatment and IV that help estimate effects, called control functions. We characterize general control functions for effect estimation in a meta-identification result. Then, we show that structural assumptions on the treatment process allow the construction of general control functions, thereby guaranteeing identification. To construct general control functions and estimate effects, we develop the general control function method (GCFN). GCFN's first stage called variational decoupling (VDE) constructs general control functions by recovering the residual variation in the treatment given the IV. Using VDE's control function, GCFN's second stage estimates effects via regression. Further, we develop semi-supervised GCFN to construct general control functions using subsets of data that have both IV and confounders observed as supervision; this needs no structural treatment process assumptions. We evaluate GCFN on low and high dimensional simulated data and on recovering the causal effect of slave export on modern community trust [30].

| S-EPMC8096518 | biostudies-literature

Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates.

Project description:Recent theoretical studies have shown that conditioning on an instrumental variable (IV), a variable that is associated with exposure but not associated with outcome except through exposure, can increase both bias and variance of exposure effect estimates. Although these findings have obvious implications in cases of known IVs, their meaning remains unclear in the more common scenario where investigators are uncertain whether a measured covariate meets the criteria for an IV or rather a confounder. The authors present results from two simulation studies designed to provide insight into the problem of conditioning on potential IVs in routine epidemiologic practice. The simulations explored the effects of conditioning on IVs, near-IVs (predictors of exposure that are weakly associated with outcome), and confounders on the bias and variance of a binary exposure effect estimate. The results indicate that effect estimates which are conditional on a perfect IV or near-IV may have larger bias and variance than the unconditional estimate. However, in most scenarios considered, the increases in error due to conditioning were small compared with the total estimation error. In these cases, minimizing unmeasured confounding should be the priority when selecting variables for adjustment, even at the risk of conditioning on IVs.

| S-EPMC3254160 | biostudies-literature

Mendelian Randomization With Refined Instrumental Variables From Genetic Score Improves Accuracy and Reduces Bias.

Project description:Mendelian randomization (MR) can estimate the causal effect for a risk factor on a complex disease using genetic variants as instrument variables (IVs). A variety of generalized MR methods have been proposed to integrate results arising from multiple IVs in order to increase power. One of the methods constructs the genetic score (GS) by a linear combination of the multiple IVs using the multiple regression model, which was applied in medical researches broadly. However, GS-based MR requires individual-level data, which greatly limit its application in clinical research. We propose an alternative method called Mendelian Randomization with Refined Instrumental Variable from Genetic Score (MR-RIVER) to construct a genetic IV by integrating multiple genetic variants based on summarized results, rather than individual data. Compared with inverse-variance weighted (IVW) and generalized summary-data-based Mendelian randomization (GSMR), MR-RIVER maintained the type I error, while possessing more statistical power than the competing methods. MR-RIVER also presented smaller biases and mean squared errors, compared to the IVW and GSMR. We further applied the proposed method to estimate the effects of blood metabolites on educational attainment, by integrating results from several publicly available resources. MR-RIVER provided robust results under different LD prune criteria and identified three metabolites associated with years of schooling and additional 15 metabolites with indirect mediation effects through butyrylcarnitine. MR-RIVER, which extends score-based MR to summarized results in lieu of individual data and incorporates multiple correlated IVs, provided a more accurate and powerful means for the discovery of novel risk factors.

| S-EPMC8044958 | biostudies-literature

Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.

Project description:Uncontrolled confounding in observational studies gives rise to biased effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis techniques can be useful in assessing the magnitude of these biases. In this paper, we use the potential outcomes framework to derive a general class of sensitivity-analysis formulas for outcomes, treatments, and measured and unmeasured confounding variables that may be categorical or continuous. We give results for additive, risk-ratio and odds-ratio scales. We show that these results encompass a number of more specific sensitivity-analysis methods in the statistics and epidemiology literature. The applicability, usefulness, and limits of the bias-adjustment formulas are discussed. We illustrate the sensitivity-analysis techniques that follow from our results by applying them to 3 different studies. The bias formulas are particularly simple and easy to use in settings in which the unmeasured confounding variable is binary with constant effect on the outcome across treatment levels.

| S-EPMC3073860 | biostudies-literature

Genetic markers as instrumental variables.

Project description:The use of genetic markers as instrumental variables (IV) is receiving increasing attention from economists, statisticians, epidemiologists and social scientists. Although IV is commonly used in economics, the appropriate conditions for the use of genetic variants as instruments have not been well defined. The increasing availability of biomedical data, however, makes understanding of these conditions crucial to the successful use of genotypes as instruments. We combine the econometric IV literature with that from genetic epidemiology, and discuss the biological conditions and IV assumptions within the statistical potential outcomes framework. We review this in the context of two illustrative applications.

| S-EPMC4770870 | biostudies-literature

Data dredging, bias, or confounding.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC1124898 | biostudies-literature

Using an instrumental variable to test for unmeasured confounding.

Project description:An important concern in an observational study is whether or not there is unmeasured confounding, that is, unmeasured ways in which the treatment and control groups differ before treatment, which affect the outcome. We develop a test of whether there is unmeasured confounding when an instrumental variable (IV) is available. An IV is a variable that is independent of the unmeasured confounding and encourages a subject to take one treatment level versus another, while having no effect on the outcome beyond its encouragement of a certain treatment level. We show what types of unmeasured confounding can be tested for with an IV and develop a test for this type of unmeasured confounding that has correct type I error rate. We show that the widely used Durbin-Wu-Hausman test can have inflated type I error rates when there is treatment effect heterogeneity. Additionally, we show that our test provides more insight into the nature of the unmeasured confounding than the Durbin-Wu-Hausman test. We apply our test to an observational study of the effect of a premature infant being delivered in a high-level neonatal intensive care unit (one with mechanical assisted ventilation and high volume) versus a lower level unit, using the excess travel time a mother lives from the nearest high-level unit to the nearest lower-level unit as an IV.

| S-EPMC4145076 | biostudies-literature

Exploring and mitigating potential bias when genetic instrumental variables are associated with multiple non-exposure traits in Mendelian randomization.

Project description:With the increasing size and number of genome-wide association studies, individual single nucleotide polymorphisms are increasingly found to associate with multiple traits. Many different mechanisms could result in proposed genetic IVs for an exposure of interest being associated with multiple non-exposure traits, some of which could bias MR results. We describe and illustrate, through causal diagrams, a range of scenarios that could result in proposed IVs being related to non-exposure traits in MR studies. These associations could occur due to five scenarios: (i) confounding, (ii) vertical pleiotropy, (iii) horizontal pleiotropy, (iv) reverse causation and (v) selection bias. For each of these scenarios we outline steps that could be taken to explore the underlying mechanism and mitigate any resulting bias in the MR estimation. We recommend MR studies explore possible IV-non-exposure associations across a wider range of traits than is usually the case. We highlight the pros and cons of relying on sensitivity analyses without considering particular pleiotropic paths versus systematically exploring and controlling for potential pleiotropic or other biasing paths via known traits. We apply our recommendations to an illustrative example of the effect of maternal insomnia on offspring birthweight in UK Biobank.

| S-EPMC9329407 | biostudies-literature

A general instrumental variable framework for regression analysis with outcome missing not at random.

Project description:The instrumental variable (IV) design is a well-known approach for unbiased evaluation of causal effects in the presence of unobserved confounding. In this article, we study the IV approach to account for selection bias in regression analysis with outcome missing not at random. In such a setting, a valid IV is a variable which (i) predicts the nonresponse process, and (ii) is independent of the outcome in the underlying population. We show that under the additional assumption (iii) that the IV is independent of the magnitude of selection bias due to nonresponse, the population regression in view is nonparametrically identified. For point estimation under (i)-(iii), we propose a simple complete-case analysis which modifies the regression of primary interest by carefully incorporating the IV to account for selection bias. The approach is developed for the identity, log and logit link functions. For inferences about the marginal mean of a binary outcome assuming (i) and (ii) only, we describe novel and approximately sharp bounds which unlike Robins-Manski bounds, are smooth in model parameters, therefore allowing for a straightforward approach to account for uncertainty due to sampling variability. These bounds provide a more honest account of uncertainty and allows one to assess the extent to which a violation of the key identifying condition (iii) might affect inferences. For illustration, the methods are used to account for selection bias induced by HIV testing nonparticipation in the evaluation of HIV prevalence in the Zambian Demographic and Health Surveys.

| S-EPMC5569006 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data