随机试验与观察性研究相结合的因果推理方法综述。

IF 3.4 1区 数学 Q1 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
Statistical Science Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-18 DOI:10.1214/23-sts889
Bénédicte Colnet, Imke Mayer, Guanhua Chen, Awa Dieng, Ruohong Li, Gaël Varoquaux, Jean-Philippe Vert, Julie Josse, Shu Yang
{"title":"随机试验与观察性研究相结合的因果推理方法综述。","authors":"Bénédicte Colnet, Imke Mayer, Guanhua Chen, Awa Dieng, Ruohong Li, Gaël Varoquaux, Jean-Philippe Vert, Julie Josse, Shu Yang","doi":"10.1214/23-sts889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With increasing data availability, causal effects can be evaluated across different data sets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding) co-occurring effects but they may suffer from unrepresentativeness, and thus lack external validity. On the other hand, large observational samples are often more representative of the target population but can conflate confounding effects with the treatment of interest. In this paper, we review the growing literature on methods for causal inference on combined RCTs and observational studies, striving for the best of both worlds. We first discuss identification and estimation methods that improve generalizability of RCTs using the representativeness of observational data. Classical estimators include weighting, difference between conditional outcome models and doubly robust estimators. We then discuss methods that combine RCTs and observational data to either ensure unconfoundedness of the observational analysis or to improve (conditional) average treatment effect estimation. We also connect and contrast works developed in both the potential outcomes literature and the structural causal model literature. Finally, we compare the main methods using a simulation study and real world data to analyze the effect of tranexamic acid on the mortality rate in major trauma patients. A review of available codes and new implementations is also provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":51172,"journal":{"name":"Statistical Science","volume":"39 1","pages":"165-191"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Inference Methods for Combining Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: A Review.\",\"authors\":\"Bénédicte Colnet, Imke Mayer, Guanhua Chen, Awa Dieng, Ruohong Li, Gaël Varoquaux, Jean-Philippe Vert, Julie Josse, Shu Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1214/23-sts889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>With increasing data availability, causal effects can be evaluated across different data sets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding) co-occurring effects but they may suffer from unrepresentativeness, and thus lack external validity. On the other hand, large observational samples are often more representative of the target population but can conflate confounding effects with the treatment of interest. In this paper, we review the growing literature on methods for causal inference on combined RCTs and observational studies, striving for the best of both worlds. We first discuss identification and estimation methods that improve generalizability of RCTs using the representativeness of observational data. Classical estimators include weighting, difference between conditional outcome models and doubly robust estimators. We then discuss methods that combine RCTs and observational data to either ensure unconfoundedness of the observational analysis or to improve (conditional) average treatment effect estimation. We also connect and contrast works developed in both the potential outcomes literature and the structural causal model literature. Finally, we compare the main methods using a simulation study and real world data to analyze the effect of tranexamic acid on the mortality rate in major trauma patients. A review of available codes and new implementations is also provided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistical Science\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"165-191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499922/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1214/23-sts889\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistical Science","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1214/23-sts889","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着数据可用性的增加,因果效应可以通过不同的数据集进行评估,包括随机对照试验(rct)和观察性研究。随机对照试验将治疗效果与不想要的(混淆的)共发生效应分离开来,但它们可能缺乏代表性,因此缺乏外部效度。另一方面,大型观察样本通常更能代表目标人群,但可能会将混淆效应与感兴趣的治疗方法混为一谈。在本文中,我们回顾了越来越多的关于联合随机对照试验和观察性研究的因果推理方法的文献,力求两全其美。我们首先讨论利用观测数据的代表性来提高随机对照试验的普遍性的识别和估计方法。经典的估计方法包括加权估计、条件结果模型差估计和双鲁棒估计。然后,我们讨论了将随机对照试验和观察数据相结合的方法,以确保观察分析的无混淆性或改进(有条件的)平均治疗效果估计。我们还联系并对比了潜在结果文献和结构因果模型文献中发展起来的作品。最后,我们比较了模拟研究和真实世界数据的主要方法来分析氨甲环酸对重大创伤患者死亡率的影响。还提供了对可用代码和新实现的回顾。
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 Methods for Combining Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: A Review.

With increasing data availability, causal effects can be evaluated across different data sets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding) co-occurring effects but they may suffer from unrepresentativeness, and thus lack external validity. On the other hand, large observational samples are often more representative of the target population but can conflate confounding effects with the treatment of interest. In this paper, we review the growing literature on methods for causal inference on combined RCTs and observational studies, striving for the best of both worlds. We first discuss identification and estimation methods that improve generalizability of RCTs using the representativeness of observational data. Classical estimators include weighting, difference between conditional outcome models and doubly robust estimators. We then discuss methods that combine RCTs and observational data to either ensure unconfoundedness of the observational analysis or to improve (conditional) average treatment effect estimation. We also connect and contrast works developed in both the potential outcomes literature and the structural causal model literature. Finally, we compare the main methods using a simulation study and real world data to analyze the effect of tranexamic acid on the mortality rate in major trauma patients. A review of available codes and new implementations is also provided.

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
Statistical Science
Statistical Science 数学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
1.80%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The central purpose of Statistical Science is to convey the richness, breadth and unity of the field by presenting the full range of contemporary statistical thought at a moderate technical level, accessible to the wide community of practitioners, researchers and students of statistics and probability.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信