MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

107 Can synthetic controls improve causal inference in interrupted time series evaluations of public health interventions?

2020· article· en· W3021067680 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Degli Esposti, Thees F. Spreckelsen, Antonio Gasparrini, Douglas J. Wiebe, Alexa R. Yakubovich, David K. Humphreys

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCausal inferencePsychological interventionInterrupted time seriesObservational studyComputer scienceInferenceInterrupted Time Series AnalysisConfoundingRisk analysis (engineering)Control (management)Time seriesPoison controlRigourManagement scienceEngineeringMachine learningEconometricsArtificial intelligencePsychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Statement of Purpose</h3> Interrupted time series (ITS) designs are a valuable quasi-experimental approach for evaluating public health interventions. ITS extends a single group pre-post comparison by using multiple timepoints to control for underlying trends. But history bias – confounding by unexpected events occurring at the same time of the intervention – threatens the validity of this design and limits causal inference. Synthetic control methodology (SCM), a popular data-driven technique for deriving a control series from a pool of unexposed populations, is increasingly recommended. We aimed to evaluate if and when SCM can strengthen an ITS design. <h3>Methods/Approach</h3> First, we summarise the main observational study designs used in evaluative research, highlighting their respective uses, strengths, biases, and design extensions. Second, we outline when the use of SCM can strengthen ITS studies and when their combined use may be problematic. Third, we provide recommendations for using SCM in ITS and, using a real-world example of an evaluation of Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws on homicides, we illustrate the potential pitfalls of using a data-driven approach to identify a suitable control series. <h3>Results</h3> Our real-world evaluation demonstrates that the benefits of SCM in ITS depends on the nature of the time-varying confounding which presents the most plausible threat to the study’s validity. We emphasise the importance of theoretical approaches for informing study design and argue that synthetic control methods are not always well-suited for minimising critical threats to ITS studies. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Advances in SCM bring new opportunities to conduct rigorous research in evaluating public health interventions. However, incorporating synthetic controls in ITS studies may not always nullify important threats to validity nor improve causal inference. <h3>Significance and Contributions to Injury and Violence Prevention Science</h3> We provide important methodological recommendations to guide advancement in the science of injury and violence prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.348
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207