用观察数据和未观察到的混杂变量进行因果推断

IF 7.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Ecology Letters Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1111/ele.70023
Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, Laura E. Dee
{"title":"用观察数据和未观察到的混杂变量进行因果推断","authors":"Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, Laura E. Dee","doi":"10.1111/ele.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experiments have long been the gold standard for causal inference in Ecology. As Ecology tackles progressively larger problems, however, we are moving beyond the scales at which randomised controlled experiments are feasible. To answer causal questions at scale, we need to also use observational data —something Ecologists tend to view with great scepticism. The major challenge using observational data for causal inference is confounding variables: variables affecting both a causal variable and response of interest. Unmeasured confounders—known or unknown—lead to statistical bias, creating spurious correlations and masking true causal relationships. To combat this omitted variable bias, other disciplines have developed rigorous approaches for causal inference from observational data that flexibly control for broad suites of confounding variables. We show how ecologists can harness some of these methods—causal diagrams to identify confounders coupled with nested sampling and statistical designs—to reduce risks of omitted variable bias. Using an example of estimating warming effects on snails, we show how current methods in Ecology (e.g., mixed models) produce incorrect inferences due to omitted variable bias and how alternative methods can eliminate it, improving causal inferences with weaker assumptions. Our goal is to expand tools for causal inference using observational and imperfect experimental data in Ecology.","PeriodicalId":161,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Letters","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Inference With Observational Data and Unobserved Confounding Variables\",\"authors\":\"Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, Laura E. Dee\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ele.70023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Experiments have long been the gold standard for causal inference in Ecology. As Ecology tackles progressively larger problems, however, we are moving beyond the scales at which randomised controlled experiments are feasible. To answer causal questions at scale, we need to also use observational data —something Ecologists tend to view with great scepticism. The major challenge using observational data for causal inference is confounding variables: variables affecting both a causal variable and response of interest. Unmeasured confounders—known or unknown—lead to statistical bias, creating spurious correlations and masking true causal relationships. To combat this omitted variable bias, other disciplines have developed rigorous approaches for causal inference from observational data that flexibly control for broad suites of confounding variables. We show how ecologists can harness some of these methods—causal diagrams to identify confounders coupled with nested sampling and statistical designs—to reduce risks of omitted variable bias. Using an example of estimating warming effects on snails, we show how current methods in Ecology (e.g., mixed models) produce incorrect inferences due to omitted variable bias and how alternative methods can eliminate it, improving causal inferences with weaker assumptions. Our goal is to expand tools for causal inference using observational and imperfect experimental data in Ecology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,实验一直是生态学因果推理的黄金标准。然而,随着生态学逐渐解决更大的问题,我们正在超越随机对照实验可行的范围。为了回答大规模的因果关系问题,我们还需要使用观察数据——生态学家倾向于以极大的怀疑态度看待这些数据。使用观测数据进行因果推理的主要挑战是混淆变量:影响因果变量和感兴趣的响应的变量。未测量的混杂因素——已知的或未知的——会导致统计偏差,产生虚假的相关性,掩盖真正的因果关系。为了对抗这种被忽略的变量偏差,其他学科已经开发出严格的方法,从观测数据中进行因果推断,灵活地控制广泛的混杂变量。我们展示了生态学家如何利用其中的一些方法——因果图来识别混杂因素,再加上嵌套抽样和统计设计——来减少遗漏变量偏差的风险。以估算蜗牛的变暖效应为例,我们展示了生态学中目前的方法(如混合模型)如何由于遗漏的变量偏差而产生不正确的推断,以及替代方法如何消除它,用较弱的假设改进因果推断。我们的目标是利用生态学中的观察和不完善的实验数据来扩展因果推理的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Causal Inference With Observational Data and Unobserved Confounding Variables

Causal Inference With Observational Data and Unobserved Confounding Variables
Experiments have long been the gold standard for causal inference in Ecology. As Ecology tackles progressively larger problems, however, we are moving beyond the scales at which randomised controlled experiments are feasible. To answer causal questions at scale, we need to also use observational data —something Ecologists tend to view with great scepticism. The major challenge using observational data for causal inference is confounding variables: variables affecting both a causal variable and response of interest. Unmeasured confounders—known or unknown—lead to statistical bias, creating spurious correlations and masking true causal relationships. To combat this omitted variable bias, other disciplines have developed rigorous approaches for causal inference from observational data that flexibly control for broad suites of confounding variables. We show how ecologists can harness some of these methods—causal diagrams to identify confounders coupled with nested sampling and statistical designs—to reduce risks of omitted variable bias. Using an example of estimating warming effects on snails, we show how current methods in Ecology (e.g., mixed models) produce incorrect inferences due to omitted variable bias and how alternative methods can eliminate it, improving causal inferences with weaker assumptions. Our goal is to expand tools for causal inference using observational and imperfect experimental data in Ecology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology Letters
Ecology Letters 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
201
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: Ecology Letters serves as a platform for the rapid publication of innovative research in ecology. It considers manuscripts across all taxa, biomes, and geographic regions, prioritizing papers that investigate clearly stated hypotheses. The journal publishes concise papers of high originality and general interest, contributing to new developments in ecology. Purely descriptive papers and those that only confirm or extend previous results are discouraged.
×
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