4.5 Article

On Negative Outcome Control of Unobserved Confounding as a Generalization of Difference-in-Differences

期刊

STATISTICAL SCIENCE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 348-361

出版社

INST MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS
DOI: 10.1214/16-STS558

关键词

Location-scale models; quantile-quantile transformation; air pollution; inflammation

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI104459] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30 ES010126, R01 ES020337] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [U54 GM088558] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The difference-in-differences (DID) approach is a well-known strategy for estimating the effect of an exposure in the presence of unobserved confounding. The approach is most commonly used when pre- and post-exposure outcome measurements are available, and one can assume that the association of the unobserved confounder with the outcome is equal in the two exposure groups, and constant over time. Then one recovers the treatment effect by regressing the change in outcome over time on the exposure. In this paper, we interpret the difference-in-differences as a negative outcome control (NOC) approach. We show that the pre-exposure outcome is a negative control outcome, as it cannot be influenced by the subsequent exposure, and it is affected by both observed and unobserved confounders of the exposure-outcome association of interest. The relation between DID and NOC provides simple conditions under which negative control outcomes can be used to detect and correct for confounding bias. However, for general negative control outcomes, the DID-like assumption may be overly restrictive and rarely credible, because it requires that both the outcome of interest and the control outcome are measured on the same scale. Thus, we present a scale-invariant generalization of the DID that may be used in broader NOC contexts. The proposed approach is demonstrated in simulations and on a Nonnative Aging Study data set, in which Body Mass Index is used for NOC of the relationship between air pollution and inflammatory outcomes.

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

4.5
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