Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40487085›Full record

ArticleObservational studies2025

Priors and Propensity Scores in Bayesian Causal Inference.

Arman Oganisian, Antonio Linero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Observational studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Arman OganisianDepartment of Biostatistics Brown University.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0437-4611
Antonio LineroDepartment of Statistics and Data Sciences The University of Texas at Austin.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aronow et al. (2025) provide a convincing case for the special status of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the propensity scores are known and can be used to make causal inferences. Here we provide a Bayesian perspective on their work by summarizing recent developments in the Bayesian literature on the topic. Whether the propensity score should play a role in Bayesian causal inference - and what that role(s) should be - has been a controversial topic for some time. We begin by describing Bayesian inference for population-level estimands and show that under commonly made (but not necessarily required) assumptions, the propensity score model has no role to play in Bayesian causal inference from a purist perspective. We discuss recent work on why these assumptions can be problematic - particularly in high-dimensional models - and discuss several Bayesian motivations for relaxing them. We describe out recent approaches for incorporating the propensity score correspond to di erent ways of relaxing these assumptions. Given these considerations, we illustrate how a Bayesian might approach the synethic examples of Aronow et al. (2025).

Indexed as

Bayesian nonparametricsBayesian statisticscausal inferencepropensity scores

Identifiers

PMID40487085
PMCPMC12139722

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.