Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28838064›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2017

A Comparison of Agent-Based Models and the Parametric G-Formula for Causal Inference.

Eleanor J Murray, James M Robins, George R Seage, Kenneth A Freedberg, Miguel A Hernán

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Applications of agent-based modeling in trauma research.Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Dynamical Modeling as a Tool for Inferring Causation.American journal of epidemiology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eleanor J Murray
James M Robins
George R Seage
Kenneth A Freedberg
Miguel A Hernán

Funding

Development and application of a new simulation model for COVID-19R01AI042006 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Kenneth Alan Freedberg, Anne Neilan · 1998 to 2026
$12.9M
New Methods for the design and evaluation of large HIV prevention interventionsR01AI112339 · NIAID · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SPIEGELMAN, DONNA L · 2014 to 2017
$2.7M
Pooling HIV Cohorts to Inform Clinical DecisionR01AI073127 · NIAID · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HERNAN, MIGUEL · 2007 to 2010
$1.5M
Calibration and Simulation of the Botswana Combination Prevention ProjectR01GM116525 · NIGMS · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SEAGE, GEORGE R · 2015 to 2017
$1.5M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI042006NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI073127NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI112339NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM116525
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-making requires choosing from treatments on the basis of correctly estimated outcome distributions under each treatment. In the absence of randomized trials, 2 possible approaches are the parametric g-formula and agent-based models (ABMs). The g-formula has been used exclusively to estimate effects in the population from which data were collected, whereas ABMs are commonly used to estimate effects in multiple populations, necessitating stronger assumptions. Here, we describe potential biases that arise when ABM assumptions do not hold. To do so, we estimated 12-month mortality risk in simulated populations differing in prevalence of an unknown common cause of mortality and a time-varying confounder. The ABM and g-formula correctly estimated mortality and causal effects when all inputs were from the target population. However, whenever any inputs came from another population, the ABM gave biased estimates of mortality-and often of causal effects even when the true effect was null. In the absence of unmeasured confounding and model misspecification, both methods produce valid causal inferences for a given population when all inputs are from that population. However, ABMs may result in bias when extrapolated to populations that differ on the distribution of unmeasured outcome determinants, even when the causal network linking variables is identical.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignModels, StatisticalBiasCausalityCause of DeathComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalDecision MakingHumansMonte Carlo MethodOutcome Assessment, Health CareRisk AssessmentSystems Analysisagent-based modelscausal inferencedecision analysisindividual-level modelsmathematical modelsmedical decision makingMonte Carlo methodsparametric g-formula

Identifiers

PMID28838064
PMCPMC5860229

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.