Regularized principal spline functions to mitigate spatial confounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new approach to address the problem of unmeasured confounding in spatial designs. Spatial confounding occurs when some confounding variables are unobserved and not included in the model, leading to distorted inferential results about the effect of an exposure on an outcome. We show the relationship existing between the confounding bias of a non-spatial model and that of a semi-parametric model that includes a basis matrix to represent the unmeasured confounder conditional on the exposure. This relationship holds for any basis expansion; however, it is shown that using the semi-parametric approach guarantees a reduction in the confounding bias only under certain circumstances, which are related to the spatial structures of the exposure and the unmeasured confounder, the type of basis expansion utilized, and the regularization mechanism. To adjust for spatial confounding, and therefore try to recover the effect of interest, we propose a Bayesian semi-parametric regression model, where an expansion matrix of principal spline basis functions is used to approximate the unobserved factor, and spike-and-slab priors are imposed on the respective expansion coefficients in order to select the most important bases. From the results of an extensive simulation study, we conclude that our proposal is able to reduce the confounding bias more than competing approaches, and it also seems more robust to bias amplification.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".