ArticleStatistics and its interface2025
Variable selection for doubly robust causal inference.
Article in Statistics and its interface, 2025. 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.
- COADVISE: covariate adjustment with variable selection in randomized controlled trials.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2026Article
- genRCT: a statistical analysis framework for generalizing RCT findings to real-world population.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Confounding control is crucial and yet challenging for causal inference based on observational studies. Under the typical unconfoundness assumption, augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) has been popular for estimating the average causal effect (ACE) due to its double robustness in the sense it relies on either the propensity score model or the outcome mean model to be correctly specified. To ensure the key assumption holds, the effort is often made to collect a sufficiently rich set of pretreatment variables, rendering variable selection imperative. It is well known that variable selection for the propensity score targeted for accurate prediction may produce a variable ACE estimator by including the instrument variables. Thus, many recent works recommend selecting all outcome predictors for both confounding control and efficient estimation. This article shows that the AIPW estimator with variable selection targeted for efficient estimation may lose the desirable double robustness property. Instead, we propose controlling the propensity score model for any covariate that is a predictor of either the treatment or the outcome or both, which preserves the double robustness of the AIPW estimator. Using this principle, we propose a two-stage procedure with penalization for variable selection and the AIPW estimator for estimation. We show the proposed procedure benefits from the desirable double robustness property. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the AIPW estimator with various variable selection criteria through simulation and an application.
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.