Showing 1–10 of 10 results for author: Zivich, P N

Double Robust Variance Estimation

Authors: Bonnie E. Shook-Sa, Paul N. Zivich, Chanhwa Lee, Keyi Xue, Rachael K. Ross, Jessie K. Edwards, Jeffrey S. A. Stringer, Stephen R. Cole

Abstract: Doubly robust estimators have gained popularity in the field of causal inference due to their ability to provide consistent point estimates when either an outcome or exposure model is correctly specified. However, the influence function based variance estimator frequently used with doubly robust estimators is only consistent when both the outcome and exposure models are correctly specified. Here,… ▽ More Doubly robust estimators have gained popularity in the field of causal inference due to their ability to provide consistent point estimates when either an outcome or exposure model is correctly specified. However, the influence function based variance estimator frequently used with doubly robust estimators is only consistent when both the outcome and exposure models are correctly specified. Here, use of M-estimation and the empirical sandwich variance estimator for doubly robust point and variance estimation is demonstrated. Simulation studies illustrate the properties of the influence function based and empirical sandwich variance estimators. Estimators are applied to data from the Improving Pregnancy Outcomes with Progesterone (IPOP) trial to estimate the effect of maternal anemia on birth weight among women with HIV. In the example, birth weights if all women had anemia were estimated to be lower than birth weights if no women had anemia, though estimates were imprecise. Variance estimates were more stable under varying model specifications for the empirical sandwich variance estimator than the influence function based variance estimator. △ Less

Submitted 24 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: 19 pages, 5 figures, 6 tables

Synthesis estimators for positivity violations with a continuous covariate

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Jessie K Edwards, Bonnie E Shook-Sa, Eric T Lofgren, Justin Lessler, Stephen R Cole

Abstract: Studies intended to estimate the effect of a treatment, like randomized trials, may not be sampled from the desired target population. To correct for this discrepancy, estimates can be transported to the target population. Methods for transporting between populations are often premised on a positivity assumption, such that all relevant covariate patterns in one population are also present in the o… ▽ More Studies intended to estimate the effect of a treatment, like randomized trials, may not be sampled from the desired target population. To correct for this discrepancy, estimates can be transported to the target population. Methods for transporting between populations are often premised on a positivity assumption, such that all relevant covariate patterns in one population are also present in the other. However, eligibility criteria, particularly in the case of trials, can result in violations of positivity when transporting to external populations. To address nonpositivity, a synthesis of statistical and mathematical models can be considered. This approach integrates multiple data sources (e.g. trials, observational, pharmacokinetic studies) to estimate treatment effects, leveraging mathematical models to handle positivity violations. This approach was previously demonstrated for positivity violations by a single binary covariate. Here, we extend the synthesis approach for positivity violations with a continuous covariate. For estimation, two novel augmented inverse probability weighting estimators are proposed. Both estimators are contrasted with other common approaches for addressing nonpositivity. Empirical performance is compared via Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, the competing approaches are illustrated with an example in the context of two-drug versus one-drug antiretroviral therapy on CD4 T cell counts among women with HIV. △ Less

Submitted 31 May, 2024; v1 submitted 15 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Empirical sandwich variance estimator for iterated conditional expectation g-computation

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Rachael K Ross, Bonnie E Shook-Sa, Stephen R Cole, Jessie K Edwards

Abstract: Iterated conditional expectation (ICE) g-computation is an estimation approach for addressing time-varying confounding for both longitudinal and time-to-event data. Unlike other g-computation implementations, ICE avoids the need to specify models for each time-varying covariate. For variance estimation, previous work has suggested the bootstrap. However, bootstrap** can be computationally intens… ▽ More Iterated conditional expectation (ICE) g-computation is an estimation approach for addressing time-varying confounding for both longitudinal and time-to-event data. Unlike other g-computation implementations, ICE avoids the need to specify models for each time-varying covariate. For variance estimation, previous work has suggested the bootstrap. However, bootstrap** can be computationally intense and sensitive to the number of resamples used. Here, we present ICE g-computation as a set of stacked estimating equations. Therefore, the variance for the ICE g-computation estimator can be consistently estimated using the empirical sandwich variance estimator. Performance of the variance estimator was evaluated empirically with a simulation study. The proposed approach is also demonstrated with an illustrative example on the effect of cigarette smoking on the prevalence of hypertension. In the simulation study, the empirical sandwich variance estimator appropriately estimated the variance. When comparing runtimes between the sandwich variance estimator and the bootstrap for the applied example, the sandwich estimator was substantially faster, even when bootstraps were run in parallel. The empirical sandwich variance estimator is a viable option for variance estimation with ICE g-computation. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2024; v1 submitted 19 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: 18 pages, 1 figure, 6 tables

Fusing Trial Data for Treatment Comparisons: Single versus Multi-Span Bridging

Authors: Bonnie E. Shook-Sa, Paul N. Zivich, Samuel P. Rosin, Jessie K. Edwards, Adaora A. Adimora, Michael G. Hudgens, Stephen R. Cole

Abstract: While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical for establishing the efficacy of new therapies, there are limitations regarding what comparisons can be made directly from trial data. RCTs are limited to a small number of comparator arms and often compare a new therapeutic to a standard of care which has already proven efficacious. It is sometimes of interest to estimate the efficacy of the… ▽ More While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical for establishing the efficacy of new therapies, there are limitations regarding what comparisons can be made directly from trial data. RCTs are limited to a small number of comparator arms and often compare a new therapeutic to a standard of care which has already proven efficacious. It is sometimes of interest to estimate the efficacy of the new therapy relative to a treatment that was not evaluated in the same trial, such as a placebo or an alternative therapy that was evaluated in a different trial. Such multi-study comparisons are challenging because of potential differences between trial populations that can affect the outcome. In this paper, two bridging estimators are considered that allow for comparisons of treatments evaluated in different trials using data fusion methods to account for measured differences in trial populations. A "multi-span'' estimator leverages a shared arm between two trials, while a "single-span'' estimator does not require a shared arm. A diagnostic statistic that compares the outcome in the standardized shared arms is provided. The two estimators are compared in simulations, where both estimators demonstrate minimal empirical bias and nominal confidence interval coverage when the identification assumptions are met. The estimators are applied to data from the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 and 388 to compare the efficacy of two-drug versus four-drug antiretroviral therapy on CD4 cell counts among persons with advanced HIV. The single-span approach requires fewer identification assumptions and was more efficient in simulations and the application. △ Less

Submitted 1 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Transportability without positivity: a synthesis of statistical and simulation modeling

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Jessie K Edwards, Eric T Lofgren, Stephen R Cole, Bonnie E Shook-Sa, Justin Lessler

Abstract: When estimating an effect of an action with a randomized or observational study, that study is often not a random sample of the desired target population. Instead, estimates from that study can be transported to the target population. However, transportability methods generally rely on a positivity assumption, such that all relevant covariate patterns in the target population are also observed in… ▽ More When estimating an effect of an action with a randomized or observational study, that study is often not a random sample of the desired target population. Instead, estimates from that study can be transported to the target population. However, transportability methods generally rely on a positivity assumption, such that all relevant covariate patterns in the target population are also observed in the study sample. Strict eligibility criteria, particularly in the context of randomized trials, may lead to violations of this assumption. Two common approaches to address positivity violations are restricting the target population and restricting the relevant covariate set. As neither of these restrictions are ideal, we instead propose a synthesis of statistical and simulation models to address positivity violations. We propose corresponding g-computation and inverse probability weighting estimators. The restriction and synthesis approaches to addressing positivity violations are contrasted with a simulation experiment and an illustrative example in the context of sexually transmitted infection testing uptake. In both cases, the proposed synthesis approach accurately addressed the original research question when paired with a thoughtfully selected simulation model. Neither of the restriction approaches were able to accurately address the motivating question. As public health decisions must often be made with imperfect target population information, model synthesis is a viable approach given a combination of empirical data and external information based on the best available knowledge. △ Less

Submitted 3 January, 2024; v1 submitted 2 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Journal ref: Epidemiology, 35(1), 23-31 (2024)

Positivity: Identifiability and Estimability

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Stephen R Cole, Daniel Westreich

Abstract: Positivity, the assumption that every unique combination of confounding variables that occurs in a population has a non-zero probability of an action, can be further delineated as deterministic positivity and stochastic positivity. Here, we revisit this distinction, examine its relation to nonparametric identifiability and estimability, and discuss how to address violations of positivity assumptio… ▽ More Positivity, the assumption that every unique combination of confounding variables that occurs in a population has a non-zero probability of an action, can be further delineated as deterministic positivity and stochastic positivity. Here, we revisit this distinction, examine its relation to nonparametric identifiability and estimability, and discuss how to address violations of positivity assumptions. Finally, we relate positivity to recent interest in machine learning, as well as the limitations of data-adaptive algorithms for causal inference. Positivity may often be overlooked, but it remains important for inference. △ Less

Submitted 11 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Comments: 6 pages

Bridged treatment comparisons: an illustrative application in HIV treatment

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Stephen R Cole, Jessie K Edwards, Bonnie E Shook-Sa, Alexander Breskin, Michael G Hudgens

Abstract: Comparisons of treatments, interventions, or exposures are of central interest in epidemiology, but direct comparisons are not always possible due to practical or ethical reasons. Here, we detail a fusion approach to compare treatments across studies. The motivating example entails comparing the risk of the composite outcome of death, AIDS, or greater than a 50% CD4 cell count decline in people wi… ▽ More Comparisons of treatments, interventions, or exposures are of central interest in epidemiology, but direct comparisons are not always possible due to practical or ethical reasons. Here, we detail a fusion approach to compare treatments across studies. The motivating example entails comparing the risk of the composite outcome of death, AIDS, or greater than a 50% CD4 cell count decline in people with HIV when assigned triple versus mono antiretroviral therapy, using data from the AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG) 175 (mono versus dual therapy) and ACTG 320 (dual versus triple therapy). We review a set of identification assumptions and estimate the risk difference using an inverse probability weighting estimator that leverages the shared trial arms (dual therapy). A fusion diagnostic based on comparing the shared arms is proposed that may indicate violation of the identification assumptions. Application of the data fusion estimator and diagnostic to the ACTG trials indicates triple therapy results in a reduction in risk compared to monotherapy in individuals with baseline CD4 counts between 50 and 300 cells/mm$^3$. Bridged treatment comparisons address questions that none of the constituent data sources could address alone, but valid fusion-based inference requires careful consideration of the underlying assumptions. △ Less

Submitted 22 August, 2023; v1 submitted 9 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: 21 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables

Delicatessen: M-Estimation in Python

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Mark Klose, Stephen R Cole, Jessie K Edwards, Bonnie E Shook-Sa

Abstract: M-estimation is a general statistical framework that simplifies estimation. Here, we introduce delicatessen, a Python library that automates the tedious calculations of M-estimation, and supports both built-in user-specified estimating equations. To highlight the utility of delicatessen for quantitative data analysis, we provide several illustrations common to life science research: linear regress… ▽ More M-estimation is a general statistical framework that simplifies estimation. Here, we introduce delicatessen, a Python library that automates the tedious calculations of M-estimation, and supports both built-in user-specified estimating equations. To highlight the utility of delicatessen for quantitative data analysis, we provide several illustrations common to life science research: linear regression robust to outliers, estimation of a dose-response curve, and standardization of results. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2022; v1 submitted 21 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: 1 figure

Tutorial: Introduction to computational causal inference using reproducible Stata, R and Python code

Authors: Matthew J. Smith, Camille Maringe, Bernard Rachet, Mohammad A. Mansournia, Paul N. Zivich, Stephen R. Cole, Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez

Abstract: The purpose of many health studies is to estimate the effect of an exposure on an outcome. It is not always ethical to assign an exposure to individuals in randomised controlled trials, instead observational data and appropriate study design must be used. There are major challenges with observational studies, one of which is confounding that can lead to biased estimates of the causal effects. Cont… ▽ More The purpose of many health studies is to estimate the effect of an exposure on an outcome. It is not always ethical to assign an exposure to individuals in randomised controlled trials, instead observational data and appropriate study design must be used. There are major challenges with observational studies, one of which is confounding that can lead to biased estimates of the causal effects. Controlling for confounding is commonly performed by simple adjustment for measured confounders; although, often this is not enough. Recent advances in the field of causal inference have dealt with confounding by building on classical standardisation methods. However, these recent advances have progressed quickly with a relative paucity of computational-oriented applied tutorials contributing to some confusion in the use of these methods among applied researchers. In this tutorial, we show the computational implementation of different causal inference estimators from a historical perspective where different estimators were developed to overcome the limitations of the previous one. Furthermore, we also briefly introduce the potential outcomes framework, illustrate the use of different methods using an illustration from the health care setting, and most importantly, we provide reproducible and commented code in Stata, R and Python for researchers to apply in their own observational study. The code can be accessed at https://github.com/migariane/TutorialCausalInferenceEstimators △ Less

Submitted 21 December, 2020; v1 submitted 17 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators

Authors: Paul N Zivich, Alexander Breskin

Abstract: Modern causal inference methods allow machine learning to be used to weaken parametric modeling assumptions. However, the use of machine learning may result in complications for inference. Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several different estimators for the average causal ef… ▽ More Modern causal inference methods allow machine learning to be used to weaken parametric modeling assumptions. However, the use of machine learning may result in complications for inference. Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several different estimators for the average causal effect (ACE). The data generating mechanisms for the simulated treatment and outcome included log-transforms, polynomial terms, and discontinuities. We compared singly-robust estimators (g-computation, inverse probability weighting) and doubly-robust estimators (augmented inverse probability weighting, targeted maximum likelihood estimation). Nuisance functions were estimated with parametric models and ensemble machine learning, separately. We further assessed doubly-robust cross-fit estimators. With correctly specified parametric models, all of the estimators were unbiased and confidence intervals achieved nominal coverage. When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage. Due to the difficulty of properly specifying parametric models in high dimensional data, doubly-robust estimators with ensemble learning and cross-fitting may be the preferred approach for estimation of the ACE in most epidemiologic studies. However, these approaches may require larger sample sizes to avoid finite-sample issues. △ Less

Submitted 28 August, 2020; v1 submitted 21 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.

Comments: 19 pages, 3 figures

Journal ref: Epidemiology 32:3 (2021) 393-401