Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40918043›Full record

ArticleBiometrika2025

Consistency of common spatial estimators under spatial confounding.

Brian Gilbert, Elizabeth L Ogburn, Abhirup Datta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrika, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Brian GilbertDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, 605 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21215, U.S.A.
Elizabeth L OgburnDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, 605 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21215, U.S.A.
Abhirup DattaDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, 605 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21215, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-5046-0289

Funding

Statistical methods for air-pollution studies using low-cost monitorsR01ES033739 · NIEHS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Abhirup Datta · 2022 to 2026
$1.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES033739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article addresses the asymptotic performance of popular spatial regression estimators of the linear effect of an exposure on an outcome under spatial confounding, the presence of an unmeasured spatially structured variable influencing both the exposure and the outcome. We first show that the estimators from ordinary least squares and restricted spatial regression are asymptotically biased under spatial confounding. We then prove a novel result on the infill consistency of the generalized least squares estimator using a working covariance matrix from a Matérn or squared exponential kernel, in the presence of spatial confounding. The result holds under very mild assumptions, accommodating any exposure with some nonspatial variation, any spatially continuous fixed confounder function, and non-Gaussian errors in both the exposure and the outcome. Finally, we prove that spatial estimators from generalized least squares, Gaussian process regression and spline models that are consistent under confounding by a fixed function will also be consistent under endogeneity or confounding by a random function, i.e., a stochastic process. We conclude that, contrary to some claims in the literature on spatial confounding, traditional spatial estimators are capable of estimating linear exposure effects under spatial confounding as long as there is some noise in the exposure. We support our theoretical arguments with simulation studies.

Indexed as

Causal inferenceGaussian processGeneralized least squaresSpatial confoundingSpatial statistics

Identifiers

PMID40918043
PMCPMC12411883

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.