A comparison of Bayesian and Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bias from unmeasured confounding is a persistent concern in observational studies, and sensitivity analysis has been proposed as a solution. In the recent years, probabilistic sensitivity analysis using either Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis (MCSA) or Bayesian sensitivity analysis (BSA) has emerged as a practical analytic strategy when there are multiple bias parameters inputs. BSA uses Bayes theorem to formally combine evidence from the prior distribution and the data. In contrast, MCSA samples bias parameters directly from the prior distribution. Intuitively, one would think that BSA and MCSA ought to give similar results. Both methods use similar models and the same (prior) probability distributions for the bias parameters. In this paper, we illustrate the surprising finding that BSA and MCSA can give very different results. Specifically, we demonstrate that MCSA can give inaccurate uncertainty assessments (e.g. 95% intervals) that do not reflect the data's influence on uncertainty about unmeasured confounding. Using a data example from epidemiology and simulation studies, we show that certain combinations of data and prior distributions can result in dramatic prior-to-posterior changes in uncertainty about the bias parameters. This occurs because the application of Bayes theorem in a non-identifiable model can sometimes rule out certain patterns of unmeasured confounding that are not compatible with the data. Consequently, the MCSA approach may give 95% intervals that are either too wide or too narrow and that do not have 95% frequentist coverage probability. Based on our findings, we recommend that analysts use BSA for probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.242 | 0.531 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".