Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36730196›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Sensitivity analysis of individual treatment effects: A robust conformal inference approach.

Ying Jin, Zhimei Ren, Emmanuel J Candès

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Doubly robust calibration of prediction sets under covariate shift.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2024
    Article
  4. Multi-Source Conformal Inference Under Distribution Shift.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Toward personalized inference on individual treatment effects.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ying JinDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0000-0002-5211-5083
Zhimei RenDepartment of Statistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60605.
Emmanuel J CandèsDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.

Funding

A Latin American biobank for large-scale genetics research on severe mental illnessR01MH123157 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FREIMER, NELSON B., LOPEZ JARAMILLO, CARLOS · 2020 to 2025
$10.6M
Genetics of Severe Mental IllnessR01MH113078 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI BEARDEN, CARRIE E, FREIMER, NELSON B. · 2017 to 2021
$5.8M
Neurodevelopment and Psychosis in the 22q11.2 Copy Number VariantsR37MH085953 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CARRIE E BEARDEN · 2023 to 2026
$2.9M
The pursuit of genetic causal mechanismsR56HG010812 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SABATTI, CHIARA · 2021 to 2022
$875k
NHGRI NIH HHS R56 HG010812NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH113078NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH123157NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH085953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose a model-free framework for sensitivity analysis of individual treatment effects (ITEs), building upon ideas from conformal inference. For any unit, our procedure reports the Γ-value, a number which quantifies the minimum strength of confounding needed to explain away the evidence for ITE. Our approach rests on the reliable predictive inference of counterfactuals and ITEs in situations where the training data are confounded. Under the marginal sensitivity model of [Z. Tan, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101, 1619-1637 (2006)], we characterize the shift between the distribution of the observations and that of the counterfactuals. We first develop a general method for predictive inference of test samples from a shifted distribution; we then leverage this to construct covariate-dependent prediction sets for counterfactuals. No matter the value of the shift, these prediction sets (resp. approximately) achieve marginal coverage if the propensity score is known exactly (resp. estimated). We describe a distinct procedure also attaining coverage, however, conditional on the training data. In the latter case, we prove a sharpness result showing that for certain classes of prediction problems, the prediction intervals cannot possibly be tightened. We verify the validity and performance of the methods via simulation studies and apply them to analyze real datasets.

Indexed as

conformal inferenceindividual treatment effectsobservational studiespredictive inferencesensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID36730196
PMCPMC9963599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.