Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27345532›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2017

A Bayesian nonparametric approach to marginal structural models for point treatments and a continuous or survival outcome.

Jason Roy, Kirsten J Lum, Michael J Daniels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Discussion of PENCOMP.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Bayesian Approaches for Missing Not at Random Outcome Data: The Role of Identifying Restrictions.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jason RoyDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA jaroy@upenn.edu.
Kirsten J LumDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA jaroy@upenn.edu.
Michael J DanielsDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, and Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Funding

BAYESIAN APPROACHES FOR MISSINGNESS AND CAUSALITY IN CANCER AND BEHAVIOR STUDIESR01CA183854 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI DANIELS, MICHAEL J · 2014 to 2019
$1.7M
Non-Parametric Bayesian Methods for Causal InferenceR01GM112327 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ROY, JASON A · 2014 to 2017
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA183854NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM112327
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marginal structural models (MSMs) are a general class of causal models for specifying the average effect of treatment on an outcome. These models can accommodate discrete or continuous treatments, as well as treatment effect heterogeneity (causal effect modification). The literature on estimation of MSM parameters has been dominated by semiparametric estimation methods, such as inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW). Likelihood-based methods have received little development, probably in part due to the need to integrate out confounders from the likelihood and due to reluctance to make parametric modeling assumptions. In this article we develop a fully Bayesian MSM for continuous and survival outcomes. In particular, we take a Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) approach, using a combination of a dependent Dirichlet process and Gaussian process to model the observed data. The BNP approach, like semiparametric methods such as IPTW, does not require specifying a parametric outcome distribution. Moreover, by using a likelihood-based method, there are potential gains in efficiency over semiparametric methods. An additional advantage of taking a fully Bayesian approach is the ability to account for uncertainty in our (uncheckable) identifying assumption. To this end, we propose informative prior distributions that can be used to capture uncertainty about the identifying "no unmeasured confounders" assumption. Thus, posterior inference about the causal effect parameters can reflect the degree of uncertainty about this assumption. The performance of the methodology is evaluated in several simulation studies. The results show substantial efficiency gains over semiparametric methods, and very little efficiency loss over correctly specified maximum likelihood estimates. The method is also applied to data from a study on neurocognitive performance in HIV-infected women and a study of the comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive drug classes.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremData Interpretation, StatisticalModels, StatisticalSurvival AnalysisAntihypertensive AgentsCognitive DysfunctionHIV InfectionsHumansAntihypertensive AgentsCausal inferenceDirichlet processGaussian processg-FormulaObservational studiesSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID27345532
PMCPMC5255048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.