Sensitivity Analysis for Matched Observational Studies with Continuous Exposures and Binary Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matching is one of the most widely used study designs for adjusting for measured confounders in observational studies. However, unmeasured confounding may exist and cannot be removed by matching. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis is typically needed to assess a causal conclusion's sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Sensitivity analysis frameworks for binary exposures have been well-established for various matching designs and are commonly used in various studies. However, unlike the binary exposure case, there still lacks valid and general sensitivity analysis methods for continuous exposures, except in some special cases such as pair matching. To fill this gap in the binary outcome case, we develop a sensitivity analysis framework for general matching designs with continuous exposures and binary outcomes. First, we use probabilistic lattice theory to show our sensitivity analysis approach is finite-population-exact under Fisher's sharp null. Second, we prove a novel design sensitivity formula as a powerful tool for asymptotically evaluating the performance of our sensitivity analysis approach. Third, to allow effect heterogeneity with binary outcomes, we introduce a framework for conducting asymptotically exact inference and sensitivity analysis on generalized attributable effects with binary outcomes via mixed-integer programming. Fourth, for the continuous outcomes case, we show that conducting an asymptotically exact sensitivity analysis in matched observational studies when both the exposures and outcomes are continuous is generally NP-hard, except in some special cases such as pair matching. As a real data application, we apply our new methods to study the effect of early-life lead exposure on juvenile delinquency. We also develop a publicly available R package for implementation of the methods in this work.
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 | 0.168 | 0.411 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".