Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39544486›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology2024

Model-assisted sensitivity analysis for treatment effects under unmeasured confounding via regularized calibrated estimation.

Zhiqiang Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Enhanced Marginal Sensitivity Model and Bounds.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Zhiqiang TanDepartment of Statistics, Rutgers University, 110 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1780-6839

Funding

Novel and Rigorous Statistical Learning and Inference for Comparative Effectiveness Research with Complex DataR01LM014257 · NLM · RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIV OF N.J. · PI Zhiqiang Tan · 2023 to 2026
$1.4M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014257
6 · The paper itself

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

average treatment effectscalibrated estimationcausal inferencedouble robustnessquantile regressionSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID39544486
PMCPMC11558804

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.