Causal inference with noisy data: Bias analysis and estimation approaches to simultaneously addressing missingness and misclassification in binary outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal inference has been widely conducted in various fields and many methods have been proposed for different settings. However, for noisy data with both mismeasurements and missing observations, those methods often break down. In this paper, we consider a problem that binary outcomes are subject to both missingness and misclassification, when the interest is in estimation of the average treatment effects (ATE). We examine the asymptotic biases caused by ignoring missingness and/or misclassification and establish the intrinsic connections between missingness effects and misclassification effects on the estimation of ATE. We develop valid weighted estimation methods to simultaneously correct for missingness and misclassification effects. To provide protection against model misspecification, we further propose a doubly robust correction method which yields consistent estimators when either the treatment model or the outcome model is misspecified. Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of the proposed methods. An application to smoking cessation data is reported to illustrate the use of the proposed methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".