Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323264›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2024

Regression-Based Proximal Causal Inference.

Jiewen Liu, Chan Park, Kendrick Li, Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jiewen LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
Chan ParkDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Kendrick LiDepartment of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
Eric J Tchetgen TchetgenDepartment of Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

Funding

Next Generation Missing Data Methods in HIV ResearchR01AI127271 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
Novel Designs and Methods to Remove Hidden Confounding Bias in Health SciencesR01AG065276 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL · 2020 to 2024
$2.4M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI127271NIA NIH HHS R01 AG065276
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Negative controls are increasingly used to evaluate the presence of potential unmeasured confounding in observational studies. Beyond the use of negative controls to detect the presence of residual confounding, proximal causal inference (PCI) was recently proposed to de-bias confounded causal effect estimates, by leveraging a pair of treatment and outcome negative control or confounding proxy variables. While formal methods for statistical inference have been developed for PCI, these methods can be challenging to implement as they involve solving complex integral equations that are typically ill-posed. We develop a regression-based PCI approach, employing two-stage generalized linear regression models (GLMs) to implement PCI, which obviates the need to solve difficult integral equations. The proposed approach has merit in that (i) it is applicable to continuous, count, and binary outcomes cases, making it relevant to a wide range of real-world applications, and (ii) it is easy to implement using off-the-shelf software for GLMs. We establish the statistical properties of regression-based PCI and illustrate their performance in both synthetic and real-world empirical applications.

Indexed as

Generalized Linear ModelMeasurement ErrorNegative ControlProxyUnmeasured Confounding

Identifiers

PMID39323264
PMCPMC12501610

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.