4.6 Article

Adjustment for Missing Confounders Using External Validation Data and Propensity Scores

期刊

出版社

AMER STATISTICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2011.643739

关键词

Bayesian inference; Bias; Causal inference; Observational studies

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-576-25-5003, RES-576-25-0015]
  2. ESRC [ES/F032196/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. MRC [MC_UP_0801/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-576-25-5003, ES/F032196/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0801056B, MC_UP_0801/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reducing bias from missing confounders is a challenging problem in the analysis of observational data. Information about missing variables is sometimes available from external validation data, such as surveys or secondary samples drawn from the same source population. In principle, the validation data permit us to recover information about the missing data, but the difficulty is in eliciting a valid model for the nuisance distribution of the missing confounders. Motivated by a British study of the effects of trihalomethane exposure on risk of full-term low birthweight, we describe a flexible Bayesian procedure for adjusting for a vector of missing confounders using external validation data. We summarize the missing confounders with a scalar summary score using the propensity score methodology of Rosenbaum and Rubin. The score has the property that it induces conditional independence between the exposure and the missing confounders, given the measured confounders. It balances the unmeasured confounders across exposure groups, within levels of measured covariates. To adjust for bias, we need only model and adjust for the summary score during Markov chain Monte Carlo computation. Simulation results illustrate that the proposed method reduces bias from several missing confounders over a range of different sample sizes for the validation data. Appendices A C are available as online supplementary material.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据