相关论文: Propensity Score Methods for Merging Observational…

Confounding is a significant obstacle to unbiased estimation of causal effects from observational data. For settings with high-dimensional covariates -- such as text data, genomics, or the behavioral social sciences -- researchers have…

Causal inference is vital for informed decision-making across fields such as biomedical research and social sciences. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for internal validity of inferences, whereas…

Methods that infer causal dependence from observational data are central to many areas of science, including medicine, economics, and the social sciences. A variety of theoretical properties of these methods have been proven, but empirical…

Randomized experiments can provide unbiased estimates of sample average treatment effects. However, estimates of population treatment effects can be biased when the experimental sample and the target population differ. In this case, the…

We propose a prognostic stratum matching framework that addresses the deficiencies of Randomized trial data subgroup analysis and transforms ObservAtional Data to be used as if they were randomized, thus paving the road for precision…

Data from observational studies (OSs) is widely available and readily obtainable yet frequently contains confounding biases. On the other hand, data derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) helps to reduce these biases; however, it…

Data from both a randomized trial and an observational study are sometimes simultaneously available for evaluating the effect of an intervention. The randomized data typically allows for reliable estimation of average treatment effects but…

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly prevalent in education research, and are often regarded as a gold standard of causal inference. Two main virtues of randomized experiments are that they (1) do not suffer from…

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the causal effect of a treatment; however, they often have limited sample sizes and sometimes poor generalizability. On the other hand, non-randomized, observational…

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are widely considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of new treatments or interventions in drug development. Still, they may not be feasible in certain cases, such as with rare diseases…

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)…

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the current gold standards to empirically measure the effect of a new drug. However, they may be of limited size and resorting to complementary non-randomized data, referred to as observational, is…

Propensity scores are commonly used to reduce the confounding bias in non-randomized observational studies for estimating the average treatment effect. An important assumption underlying this approach is that all confounders that are…

Matching is an appealing way to design observational studies because it mimics the data structure produced by stratified randomized trials, pairing treated individuals with similar controls. After matching, inference is often conducted…

A crucial task for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to specify a statistical method that can yield an efficient estimator and powerful test for the treatment effect. A novel and effective strategy to obtain efficient and powerful…

Many recent efforts center on assessing the ability of real-world evidence (RWE) generated from non-randomized, observational data to produce results compatible with those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One noticeable endeavor is…

Observational studies provide the only evidence on the effectiveness of interventions when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are impractical due to cost, ethical concerns, or time constraints. While many methodologies aim to draw causal…

A Randomized Control Trial (RCT) is considered as the gold standard for evaluating the effect of any intervention or treatment. However, its feasibility is often hindered by ethical, economical, and legal considerations, making…

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as the gold standard for causal inference in biomedical research. For instance, when estimating the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), a doubly robust estimation procedure…

We develop estimators that improve precision of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates that allow borrowing information from observational studies when the available covariates in each data source do not perfectly match. Standard…