Impact of discretization of the timeline for longitudinal causal inference methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In longitudinal settings, causal inference methods usually rely on a discretization of the patient timeline that may not reflect the underlying data generation process. This article investigates the estimation of causal parameters under discretized data. It presents the implicit assumptions practitioners make but do not acknowledge when discretizing data to assess longitudinal causal parameters. We illustrate that differences in point estimates under different discretizations are due to the data coarsening resulting in both a modified definition of the parameter of interest and loss of information about time-dependent confounders. We further investigate several tools to advise analysts in selecting a timeline discretization for use with pooled longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation for the estimation of the parameters of a marginal structural model. We use a simulation study to empirically evaluate bias at different discretizations and assess the use of the cross-validated variance as a measure of data support to select a discretization under a chosen data coarsening mechanism. We then apply our approach to a study on the relative effect of alternative asthma treatments during pregnancy on pregnancy duration. The results of the simulation study illustrate how coarsening changes the target parameter of interest as well as how it may create bias due to a lack of appropriate control for time-dependent confounders. We also observe evidence that the cross-validated variance acts well as a measure of support in the data, by being minimized at finer discretizations as the sample size increases.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".