Might Temporal Logic Improve the Specification of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)?

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
G. Ellison
{"title":"Might Temporal Logic Improve the Specification of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)?","authors":"G. Ellison","doi":"10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Temporality-driven covariate classification had limited impact on: the specification of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) by 85 novice analysts (medical undergraduates); or the risk of bias in DAG-informed multivariable models designed to generate causal inference from observational data. Only 71 students (83.5%) managed to complete the “Temporality-driven Covariate Classification” task, and fewer still completed the “DAG Specification” task (77.6%) or both tasks in succession (68.2%). Most students who completed the first task misclassified at least one covariate (84.5%), and misclassification rates were even higher among students who specified a DAG (92.4%). Nonetheless, across the 512 and 517 covariates considered by each of these tasks, “confounders” were far less likely to be misclassified (11/252, 4.4% and 8/261, 3.1%) than “mediators” (70/123, 56.9% and 56/115, 48.7%) or “competing exposures” (93/137, 67.9% and 86/138, 62.3%), respectively. Since estimates of total causal effects are biased in multivariable models that: fail to adjust for “confounders”; or adjust for “mediators” (or “consequences of the outcome”) misclassified as “confounders” or “competing exposures,” a substantial proportion of any models informed by the present study’s DAGs would have generated biased estimates of total causal effects (50/66, 76.8%); and this would have only been slightly lower for models informed by temporality-driven covariate classification alone (47/71, 66.2%). Supplementary materials for this article are available online.","PeriodicalId":34851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education","volume":"29 1","pages":"202 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2021.1936311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Temporality-driven covariate classification had limited impact on: the specification of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) by 85 novice analysts (medical undergraduates); or the risk of bias in DAG-informed multivariable models designed to generate causal inference from observational data. Only 71 students (83.5%) managed to complete the “Temporality-driven Covariate Classification” task, and fewer still completed the “DAG Specification” task (77.6%) or both tasks in succession (68.2%). Most students who completed the first task misclassified at least one covariate (84.5%), and misclassification rates were even higher among students who specified a DAG (92.4%). Nonetheless, across the 512 and 517 covariates considered by each of these tasks, “confounders” were far less likely to be misclassified (11/252, 4.4% and 8/261, 3.1%) than “mediators” (70/123, 56.9% and 56/115, 48.7%) or “competing exposures” (93/137, 67.9% and 86/138, 62.3%), respectively. Since estimates of total causal effects are biased in multivariable models that: fail to adjust for “confounders”; or adjust for “mediators” (or “consequences of the outcome”) misclassified as “confounders” or “competing exposures,” a substantial proportion of any models informed by the present study’s DAGs would have generated biased estimates of total causal effects (50/66, 76.8%); and this would have only been slightly lower for models informed by temporality-driven covariate classification alone (47/71, 66.2%). Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
时间逻辑是否能改善有向无环图(dag)的规范?
摘要时间驱动的协变量分类对85名新手分析师(医学本科生)对有向无环图(DAG)的规范影响有限;或DAG多变量模型中的偏差风险,该模型旨在从观测数据中产生因果推断。只有71名学生(83.5%)成功完成了“时间驱动的协变量分类”任务,完成“DAG规范”任务(77.6%)或连续完成两项任务(68.2%)的学生更少。大多数完成第一项任务的学生至少对一个协变量进行了错误分类(84.5%),指定DAG的学生的错误分类率更高(92.4%)。尽管如此,在每项任务考虑的512和517个协变量中,“混杂因素”被错误分类的可能性(11/252,4.4%和8/261,3.1%)远低于“中介因素”(70/123,56.9%和56/115,48.7%)或“竞争暴露”(93/137,67.9%和86/138,62.3%)。由于在多变量模型中对总因果效应的估计是有偏差的,这些模型:未能调整“混杂因素”;或根据被错误归类为“混杂因素”或“竞争暴露”的“媒介”(或“结果的后果”)进行调整,本研究DAG所提供的任何模型中,很大一部分都会对总因果效应产生有偏差的估计(50/66,76.8%);对于仅由时间驱动的协变量分类提供信息的模型,这一比例仅略低(47/71,66.2%)。本文的补充材料可在线获取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education
Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
35.30%
发文量
52
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信