ArticleBiometrika2025
Consistency of common spatial estimators under spatial confounding.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.