Related papers: Clarifying Selection Bias in Cluster Randomized Tr…

Treatment effect estimates are often available from randomized controlled trials as a single average treatment effect for a certain patient population. Estimates of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) are more useful for…

Conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation is the de facto gold standard for targeting a treatment to a heterogeneous population. The method estimates treatment effects up to an error $\epsilon > 0$ in each of $M$ different…

Given only data generated by a standard confounding graph with unobserved confounder, the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) is not identifiable. To estimate the ATE, a practitioner must then either (a) collect deconfounded data;(b) run a…

Considering censored outcomes in survival analysis can lead to quite complex results in the model setting of causal inference. Causal inference has attracted a lot of attention over the past few years, but little research has been done on…

When estimating causal effects, it is important to assess external validity, i.e., determine how useful a given study is to inform a practical question for a specific target population. One challenge is that the covariate distribution in…

Across research disciplines, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are commonly implemented to evaluate interventions delivered to groups of participants, such as communities and clinics. Despite advances in the design and analysis of CRTs,…

Clustering and dependence are common in trials. For example, in some cluster randomized trials (CRTs), pre-existing clusters are enrolled, randomized, and serve as the basis of intervention delivery. Such CRTs are "fully clustered":…

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard for estimating causal effect, but they may lack external validity when the population eligible to the RCT is substantially different from the target population.…

Estimating conditional average treatment effects (CATE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and generalizing them to broader populations is essential for personalizing treatment rules but is complicated by selection bias due to trial…

There is growing interest in exploring causal effects in target populations via data combination. However, most approaches are tailored to specific settings and lack comprehensive comparative analyses. In this article, we focus on a typical…

The paper proposes an estimator to make inference of heterogeneous treatment effects sorted by impact groups (GATES) for non-randomised experiments. The groups can be understood as a broader aggregation of the conditional average treatment…

Instrumental variables (IVs) are widely used for estimating causal effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding. Under the standard IV model, however, the average treatment effect (ATE) is only partially identifiable. To address this,…

We consider the problem of estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) when both randomized control trial (RCT) data and external real-world data (RWD) are available. We decompose the ATE estimand as the difference between a pooled-ATE…

Confounding bias and selection bias bring two significant challenges to the validity of conclusions drawn from applied causal inference. The latter can stem from informative missingness, such as in cases of attrition. We introduce the…

Background: Randomized controlled trials are often used to inform policy and practice for broad populations. The average treatment effect (ATE) for a target population, however, may be different from the ATE observed in a trial if there are…

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is important to tailor treatments to those individuals who would most likely benefit. However, conditional average treatment effect predictors may often be trained on one population but possibly…

Since the average treatment effect (ATE) measures the change in social welfare, even if positive, there is a risk of negative effect on, say, some 10% of the population. Assessing such risk is difficult, however, because any one individual…

In the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, the average treatment effect (ATE) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) may differ from the average effect of the same treatment if applied to a target population of interest. If all…

Causal inference from observational data requires untestable identification assumptions. If these assumptions apply, machine learning (ML) methods can be used to study complex forms of causal effect heterogeneity. Recently, several ML…

Estimating conditional average treatment effects (CATE) is challenging, especially when treatment information is missing. Although this is a widespread problem in practice, CATE estimation with missing treatments has received little…