Selection without Collider Stratification can Bias Instrumental Variable Analyses in the Presence of Causal Effect Heterogeneity
Gkatzionis, A.; Hartwig, F. P.; Tilling, K.
Show abstract
Selection bias is a common concern in causal inference. Two mechanisms can give rise to selection bias: collider bias or stratifying on an effect modifier of the exposure-outcome causal effect. Research into the impact of selection bias on instrumental variable (IV) analyses has focused primarily on collider bias. Here, we show that IV estimates can be biased if selection is an effect modifier (or caused by an effect modifier) of the exposure-outcome effect. In a simulation study, we investigate the size and direction of the bias when estimating effects on the mean difference or odds ratio scale. Bias can also occur due to heterogeneity in the instrument-exposure relationship, although its magnitude is typically smaller. Finally, we discuss methods to deal with this bias in practice, including inverse probability weighting (IPW).
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing Covariate Balance with Small Sample Sizes 95%
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: use and interpretation of the Trimmed Means Estimator 94%
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 94%
- Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for Two-Stream Capture-Recapture Methods in Disease Surveillance 91%
- Assessing Direct and Spillover Effects of Intervention Packages in Network-Randomized Studies 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 93%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 91%
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Novel Penalized Inverse-Variance Weighted Estimator for Mendelian Randomization with Applications to COVID-19 Outcomes 93%
- Statistical inference for association studies using electronic health records: handling both selection bias and outcome misclassification 93%
- Generalized Multi-SNP Mediation Intersection-Union Test 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.