MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008269149 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/86d2k

Effect Decomposition in the Presence of Treatment-induced Confounding: A Regression-with-residuals Approach

2019· article· en· W3008269149 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey T. Wodtke, Xiang Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingEstimatorStatisticsOutcome (game theory)EconometricsWeightingMediationRegressionSet (abstract data type)Conditional expectationInverse probability weightingMathematicsMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Analyses of causal mediation are often complicated by treatment-induced confounders of the mediator-outcome relationship. In the presence of such confounders, the natural direct and indirect effects of treatment on the outcome, into which the total effect can be additively decomposed, are not identified. An alternative but similar set of effects, known as randomized intervention analogues to the natural direct effect (R-NDE) and the natural indirect effect (R-NIE), can still be identified in this situation, but existing estimators for these effects require a complicated weighting procedure that is difficult to use in practice. In this paper, we introduce a new method for estimating the R-NDE and R-NIE that involves only a minor adaption of the comparatively simple regression methods used to perform effect decomposition in the absence of treatment-induced confounding. It involves fitting linear models for (a) the conditional mean of the mediator given treatment and a set of baseline confounders and (b) the conditional mean of the outcome given the treatment, mediator, baseline confounders, and the treatment-induced confounders after first residualizing them with respect to the observed past. The R-NDE and R-NIE are simple functions of the parameters in these models when they are correctly specified and when there are no unobserved variables that confound the treatment-outcome, treatment-mediator, or mediator-outcome relationships. We illustrate the method by decomposing the effect of education on depression symptoms at midlife into components operating through income versus alternative factors. R and Stata packages are available for implementing the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207