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
. 2009 Oct 1;139(10):3473-3487.
doi: 10.1016/j.jspi.2009.03.024.

Analytic Bounds on Causal Risk Differences in Directed Acyclic Graphs Involving Three Observed Binary Variables

Affiliations

Analytic Bounds on Causal Risk Differences in Directed Acyclic Graphs Involving Three Observed Binary Variables

Sol Kaufman et al. J Stat Plan Inference. .

Abstract

We apply a linear programming approach which uses the causal risk difference (RD(C)) as the objective function and provides minimum and maximum values that RD(C) can achieve under any set of linear constraints on the potential response type distribution. We consider two scenarios involving binary exposure X, covariate Z and outcome Y. In the first, Z is not affected by X, and is a potential confounder of the causal effect of X on Y. In the second, Z is affected by X and intermediate in the causal pathway between X and Y. For each scenario we consider various linear constraints corresponding to the presence or absence of arcs in the associated directed acyclic graph (DAG), monotonicity assumptions, and presence or absence of additive-scale interactions. We also estimate Z-stratum-specific bounds when Z is a potential effect measure modifier and bounds for both controlled and natural direct effects when Z is affected by X. In the absence of any additional constraints deriving from background knowledge, the well-known bounds on RDc are duplicated: -Pr(Y not equalX) </= RD(C) </= Pr(Y=X). These bounds have unit width, but can be narrowed by background knowledge-based assumptions. We provide and compare bounds and bound widths for various combinations of assumptions in the two scenarios and apply these bounds to real data from two studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Pretreatment Covariate DAG
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Intermediate Covariate DAG

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444–55.
    1. Balke AA. Dept of Computer Science. University of California: Los Angeles; 1995. Probabilistic Counterfactuals: Semantics, Computation, and Applications. Technical Report R-242, Cognitive Systems Laboratory. Ph.D. dissertation.
    1. Balke AA, Pearl J. Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1997;92:1171–6.
    1. Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology. 2006;17:268–75. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidem. 2002;31:163–5. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources