相关论文: Bridging the Gap Between Design and Analysis: Rand…

Matching is a widely used causal inference design that aims to approximate a randomized experiment using observational data by forming matched sets of treated and control units based on similarities in their covariates. Ideally, treated…

Matching is one of the most widely used study designs for adjusting for measured confounders in observational studies. However, unmeasured confounding may exist and cannot be removed by matching. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis is…

We develop sensitivity analyses for weak nulls in matched observational studies while allowing unit-level treatment effects to vary. The methods may be applied to studies using any optimal without-replacement matching algorithm. In contrast…

Observational studies provide invaluable opportunities to draw causal inference, but they may suffer from biases due to pretreatment difference between treated and control units. Matching is a popular approach to reduce observed covariate…

Matching is one of the most widely used causal inference frameworks in observational studies. However, all the existing matching-based causal inference methods are designed for either a single treatment with general treatment types (e.g.,…

To ensure reliable causal conclusions from observational (i.e., non-randomized) studies, researchers routinely conduct sensitivity analysis to assess robustness to hidden bias due to unmeasured confounding. In matched observational studies…

Identifying causal treatment (or exposure) effects in observational studies requires the data to satisfy the unconfoundedness assumption which is not testable using the observed data. With sensitivity analysis, one can determine how the…

A sensitivity analysis in an observational study assesses the robustness of significant findings to unmeasured confounding. While sensitivity analyses in matched observational studies have been well addressed when there is a single outcome…

We provide an approach to exploratory data analysis in matched observational studies with a single intervention and multiple endpoints. In such settings, the researcher would like to explore evidence for actual treatment effects among these…

One of the fundamental challenges in drawing causal inferences from observational studies is that the assumption of no unmeasured confounding is not testable from observed data. Therefore, assessing sensitivity to this assumption's…

A fundamental limitation of causal inference in observational studies is that perceived evidence for an effect might instead be explained by factors not accounted for in the primary analysis. Methods for assessing the sensitivity of a…

It is common to conduct causal inference in matched observational studies by proceeding as though treatment assignments within matched sets are assigned uniformly at random and using this distribution as the basis for inference. This…

Randomization inference is a widely-used and appealing approach for analyzing treatment effects in randomized experiments, as it is finite-sample valid and does not require any distributional assumptions. However, naive application of…

In matched observational studies with continuous treatments, individuals with different treatment doses but the same or similar covariate values are paired for causal inference. While inexact covariate matching (i.e., covariate imbalance…

Causal inference from observational data is crucial for many disciplines such as medicine and economics. However, sharp bounds for causal effects under relaxations of the unconfoundedness assumption (causal sensitivity analysis) are subject…

Causal inference with observational studies often suffers from unmeasured confounding, yielding biased estimators based on the unconfoundedness assumption. Sensitivity analysis assesses how the causal conclusions change with respect to…

Matching is one of the most widely used causal inference designs in observational studies, but post-matching confounding bias remains a critical concern. This bias includes overt bias from inexact matching on measured confounders and hidden…

Causal conclusions from observational studies may be sensitive to unmeasured confounding. In such cases, a sensitivity analysis is often conducted, which tries to infer the minimum amount of hidden biases or the minimum strength of…

Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard when estimating the average treatment effect. However, they are usually not a random sample from the real-world population because of the inclusion/exclusion rules. Meanwhile, observational…

Causal inference with interference is a rapidly growing area. The literature has begun to relax the "no-interference" assumption that the treatment received by one individual does not affect the outcomes of other individuals. In this paper…