Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30520989›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2019

DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling and microsimulation modelling: a critical comparison of methods for causal inference.

Kellyn F Arnold, Wendy J Harrison, Alison J Heppenstall, Mark S Gilthorpe

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Composite variable bias: causal analysis of weight outcomes.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Applications of agent-based modeling in trauma research.Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kellyn F ArnoldLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Wendy J HarrisonLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Alison J HeppenstallLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Mark S GilthorpeLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current paradigm for causal inference in epidemiology relies primarily on the evaluation of counterfactual contrasts via statistical regression models informed by graphical causal models (often in the form of directed acyclic graphs, or DAGs) and their underlying mathematical theory. However, there have been growing calls for supplementary methods, and one such method that has been proposed is agent-based modelling due to its potential for simulating counterfactuals. However, within the epidemiological literature, there currently exists a general lack of clarity regarding what exactly agent-based modelling is (and is not) and, importantly, how it differs from microsimulation modelling-perhaps its closest methodological comparator. We clarify this distinction by briefly reviewing the history of each method, which provides a context for their similarities and differences, and casts light on the types of research questions that they have evolved (and thus are well suited) to answering; we do the same for DAG-informed regression methods. The distinct historical evolutions of DAG-informed regression modelling, microsimulation modelling and agent-based modelling have given rise to distinct features of the methods themselves, and provide a foundation for critical comparison. Not only are the three methods well suited to addressing different types of causal questions, but, in doing so, they place differing levels of emphasis on fixed and random effects, and also tend to operate on different timescales and in different timeframes.

Indexed as

CausalityModels, StatisticalConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumansResearch DesignSystems Analysisagent-based modellingcausal inferencecounterfactualsdirected acyclic graphsmicrosimulation modelling

Identifiers

PMID30520989
PMCPMC6380300
OpenAlexW2898504466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.