Use of instrumental variables in the analysis of generalized linear models in the presence of unmeasured confounding with applications to epidemiological research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major, often unstated, concern of researchers carrying out epidemiological studies of medical therapy is the potential impact on validity if estimates of treatment are biased due to unmeasured confounders. One technique for obtaining consistent estimates of treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounders is instrumental variables analysis (IVA). This technique has been well developed in the econometrics literature and is being increasingly used in epidemiological studies. However, the approach to IVA that is most commonly used in such studies is based on linear models, while many epidemiological applications make use of non-linear models, specifically generalized linear models (GLMs) such as logistic or Poisson regression. Here we present a simple method for applying IVA within the class of GLMs using the generalized method of moments approach. We explore some of the theoretical properties of the method and illustrate its use within both a simulation example and an epidemiological study where unmeasured confounding is suspected to be present. We estimate the effects of beta-blocker therapy on one-year all-cause mortality after an incident hospitalization for heart failure, in the absence of data describing disease severity, which is believed to be a confounder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".