Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42781172›Full record

ArticleObservational studies2026

Assessing Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Research via Bayesian Semiparametric Modeling.

Xinyi Xu, Steven N MacEachern, Bo Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Observational studies, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Xinyi XuDepartment of Statistics, College of Arts and SciencesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus, OH, USA.
Steven N MacEachernDepartment of Statistics, College of Arts and SciencesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus, OH, USA.
Bo LuDivision of Biostatistics, College of Public HealthThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus, OH, USA.

Funding

Poly-Matching Causal Inference for Assessing Multiple Acute Medical Managements of Pediatric Traumatic Brain InjuriesR01HD107280 · NICHD · RESEARCH INST NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSP · PI Jonathan Groner, Bo Lu · 2023 to 2026
$2.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD107280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is challenging to infer a causal relationship with observational data. Untestable assumptions of ignorability or exchangeability are often utilized to facilitate causal effect estimation, which opens the door to arguments for and against the validity of a causal conclusion. In their 1959 seminal paper, Cornfield and colleagues provided sophisticated statistical reasoning for causal inference with observational data and made a key technical contribution to sensitivity analysis. Cornfield's idea paved the way for the development of modern tools for assessment of causality if ignorability assumptions fail. Compared with classical/frequentist approaches, Bayesian methods for sensitivity analysis are less fully developed. In this commentary, we first introduce a Bayesian semiparametric model for causal inference, then present a sensitivity analysis strategy for the Gaussian process model. Our method is easily interpretable and avoids restrictive parametric outcome assumptions. It can also be applied to both population-level and conditional causal effects.

Indexed as

Gaussian process priorHeterogeneous effectsPrognostic scorePropensity scoreSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID42781172
PMCPMC13600456

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.