Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9.
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00021.x.

Principal stratification in causal inference

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Principal stratification in causal inference

Constantine E Frangakis et al. Biometrics. 2002 Mar.

Abstract

Many scientific problems require that treatment comparisons be adjusted for posttreatment variables, but the estimands underlying standard methods are not causal effects. To address this deficiency, we propose a general framework for comparing treatments adjusting for posttreatment variables that yields principal effects based on principal stratification. Principal stratification with respect to a posttreatment variable is a cross-classification of subjects defined by the joint potential values of that posttreatment variable tinder each of the treatments being compared. Principal effects are causal effects within a principal stratum. The key property of principal strata is that they are not affected by treatment assignment and therefore can be used just as any pretreatment covariate. such as age category. As a result, the central property of our principal effects is that they are always causal effects and do not suffer from the complications of standard posttreatment-adjusted estimands. We discuss briefly that such principal causal effects are the link between three recent applications with adjustment for posttreatment variables: (i) treatment noncompliance, (ii) missing outcomes (dropout) following treatment noncompliance. and (iii) censoring by death. We then attack the problem of surrogate or biomarker endpoints, where we show, using principal causal effects, that all current definitions of surrogacy, even when perfectly true, do not generally have the desired interpretation as causal effects of treatment on outcome. We go on to forrmulate estimands based on principal stratification and principal causal effects and show their superiority.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distinction between statistical and principal surrogates. Dashed boxes represent missing information, solid boxes represent observed information.

References

    1. Angrist J, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with discussion) Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1996;91:444–472.
    1. Baker SG, Lindeman KS. The paired availability design: A proposal for evaluating epidural analgesia during labor. Statistics in Medicine. 1994;13:2269–2278. - PubMed
    1. Baker SG, Wax Y, Patterson BH. Regression analysis of grouped survival data: Informative censoring and double sampling. Biometrics. 1993;49:379–389. - PubMed
    1. Balke A, Pearl J. Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1997;92:1171–1176.
    1. Barnard J, Frangakis CE, Hill JL, Rubin DB, et al. School choice in NY City: A Bayesian analysis of an imperfect randomized experiment. In: Gatsonis C, editor. Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics (with discussion) New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001. in press.

Publication types