ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology2024
Model-assisted sensitivity analysis for treatment effects under unmeasured confounding via regularized calibrated estimation.
Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced Marginal Sensitivity Model and Bounds.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2026Article
- Sensitivity models and bounds under sequential unmeasured confounding in longitudinal studies.Biometrika · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Consider sensitivity analysis for estimating average treatment effects under unmeasured confounding, assumed to satisfy a marginal sensitivity model. At the population level, we provide new representations for the sharp population bounds and doubly robust estimating functions. We also derive new, relaxed population bounds, depending on weighted linear outcome quantile regression. At the sample level, we develop new methods and theory for obtaining not only doubly robust point estimators for the relaxed population bounds with respect to misspecification of a propensity score model or an outcome mean regression model, but also model-assisted confidence intervals which are valid if the propensity score model is correctly specified, but the outcome quantile and mean regression models may be misspecified. The relaxed population bounds reduce to the sharp bounds if outcome quantile regression is correctly specified. For a linear outcome mean regression model, the confidence intervals are also doubly robust. Our methods involve regularized calibrated estimation, with Lasso penalties but carefully chosen loss functions, for fitting propensity score and outcome mean and quantile regression models. We present a simulation study and an empirical application to an observational study on the effects of right-heart catheterization. The proposed method is implemented in the R package RCALsa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.