Dataset Information

Combining Multiple Observational Data Sources to Estimate Causal Effects.

ABSTRACT: The era of big data has witnessed an increasing availability of multiple data sources for statistical analyses. We consider estimation of causal effects combining big main data with unmeasured confounders and smaller validation data with supplementary information on these confounders. Under the unconfoundedness assumption with completely observed confounders, the smaller validation data allow for constructing consistent estimators for causal effects, but the big main data can only give error-prone estimators in general. However, by leveraging the information in the big main data in a principled way, we can improve the estimation efficiencies yet preserve the consistencies of the initial estimators based solely on the validation data. Our framework applies to asymptotically normal estimators, including the commonly used regression imputation, weighting, and matching estimators, and does not require a correct specification of the model relating the unmeasured confounders to the observed variables. We also propose appropriate bootstrap procedures, which makes our method straightforward to implement using software routines for existing estimators. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

SUBMITTER: Yang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7571608 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combining Multiple Observational Data Sources to Estimate Causal Effects.

Yang Shu S Ding Peng P

Journal of the American Statistical Association 20190611 531

The era of big data has witnessed an increasing availability of multiple data sources for statistical analyses. We consider estimation of causal effects combining big main data with unmeasured confounders and smaller validation data with supplementary information on these confounders. Under the unconfoundedness assumption with completely observed confounders, the smaller validation data allow for constructing consistent estimators for causal effects, but the big main data can only give error-pro ...[more]

PMID: 33088006

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.DesignA systematic review of published studies.Data sourcesPubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selectionObservational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.ConclusionsComparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been great interest in using transcriptomic data to infer gene regulatory networks. For the time being, methodological development in this area has primarily made use of graphical Gaussian models for observational wild-type data, resulting in undirected graphs that are not able to accurately highlight causal relationships among genes. In the present work, we seek to improve the estimation of causal effects among genes by jointly modeling observational transcriptomic data with arbitrarily complex intervention data obtained by performing partial, single, or multiple gene knock-outs or knock-downs. RESULTS: Using the framework of causal Gaussian Bayesian networks, we propose a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm with a Mallows proposal model and analytical likelihood maximization to sample from the posterior distribution of causal node orderings, and in turn, to estimate causal effects. The main advantage of the proposed algorithm over previously proposed methods is its flexibility to accommodate any kind of intervention design, including partial or multiple knock-out experiments. Using simulated data as well as data from the Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods (DREAM) 2007 challenge, the proposed method was compared to two alternative approaches: one requiring a complete, single knock-out design, and one able to model only observational data. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm was found to perform as well as, and in most cases better, than the alternative methods in terms of accuracy for the estimation of causal effects. In addition, multiple knock-outs proved to contribute valuable additional information compared to single knock-outs. Finally, the simulation study confirmed that it is not possible to estimate the causal ordering of genes from observational data alone. In all cases, we found that the inclusion of intervention experiments enabled more accurate estimation of causal regulatory relationships than the use of wild-type data alone.

Project description:ImportanceSuicide is a leading cause of death in the US. However, official national statistics on suicide rates are delayed by 1 to 2 years, hampering evidence-based public health planning and decision-making.ObjectiveTo estimate weekly suicide fatalities in the US in near real time.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional national study used a machine learning pipeline to combine signals from several streams of real-time information to estimate weekly suicide fatalities in the US in near real time. This 2-phase approach first fits optimal machine learning models to each individual data stream and subsequently combines predictions made from each data stream via an artificial neural network. National-level US administrative data on suicide deaths, health services, and economic, meteorological, and online data were variously obtained from 2014 to 2017. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017.ExposuresLongitudinal data on suicide-related exposures were obtained from multiple, heterogeneous streams: emergency department visits for suicide ideation and attempts collected via the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (2015-2017); calls to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (2014-2017); calls to US poison control centers for intentional self-harm (2014-2017); consumer price index and seasonality-adjusted unemployment rate, hourly earnings, home price index, and 3-month and 10-year yield curves from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (2014-2017); weekly daylight hours (2014-2017); Google and YouTube search trends related to suicide (2014-2017); and public posts on suicide on Reddit (2 314 533 posts), Twitter (9 327 472 tweets; 2015-2017), and Tumblr (1 670 378 posts; 2014-2017).Main outcomes and measuresWeekly estimates of suicide fatalities in the US were obtained through a machine learning pipeline that integrated the above data sources. Estimates were compared statistically with actual fatalities recorded by the National Vital Statistics System.ResultsCombining information from multiple data streams, the machine learning method yielded estimates of weekly suicide deaths with high correlation to actual counts and trends (Pearson correlation, 0.811; P < .001), while estimating annual suicide rates with low error (0.55%).Conclusions and relevanceThe proposed ensemble machine learning framework reduces the error for annual suicide rate estimation to less than one-tenth of that of current forecasting approaches that use only historical information on suicide deaths. These findings establish a novel approach for tracking suicide fatalities in near real time and provide the potential for an effective public health response such as supporting budgetary decisions or deploying interventions.

Dataset Information

Combining Multiple Observational Data Sources to Estimate Causal Effects.

Publications

Combining Multiple Observational Data Sources to Estimate Causal Effects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets