Instrumental variable estimation of complier causal treatment effect with interval-censored data.

Assessing causal treatment effect on a time-to-event outcome is of key interest in many scientific investigations. Instrumental variable (IV) is a useful tool to mitigate the impact of endogenous treatment selection to attain unbiased estimation of causal treatment effect. Existing development of IV methodology, however, has not attended to outcomes subject to interval censoring, which are ubiquitously present in studies with intermittent follow-up but are challenging to handle in terms of both theory and computation. In this work, we fill in this important gap by studying a general class of causal semiparametric transformation models with interval-censored data. We propose a nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator of the complier causal treatment effect. Moreover, we design a reliable and computationally stable expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, which has a tractable objective function in the maximization step via the use of Poisson latent variables. The asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators, including the consistency, asymptotic normality, and semiparametric efficiency, are established with empirical process techniques. We conduct extensive simulation studies and an application to a colorectal cancer screening data set, showing satisfactory finite-sample performance of the proposed method as well as its prominent advantages over naive methods.

Learning end-to-end patient representations through self-supervised covariate balancing for causal treatment effect estimation.

A causal effect can be defined as a comparison of outcomes that result from two or more alternative actions, with only one of the action-outcome pairs actually being observed. In healthcare, the gold standard for causal effect measurements is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which a target population is explicitly defined and each study sample is randomly assigned to either the treatment or control cohorts. The great potential to derive actionable insights from causal relationships has led to a growing body of machine-learning research applying causal effect estimators to observational data in the fields of healthcare, education, and economics. The primary difference between causal effect studies utilizing observational data and RCTs is that for observational data, the study occurs after the treatment, and therefore we do not have control over the treatment assignment mechanism. This can lead to massive differences in covariate distributions between control and treatment samples, making a comparison of causal effects confounded and unreliable. Classical approaches have sought to solve this problem piecemeal, first by predicting treatment assignment and then treatment effect separately. Recent work extended part of these approaches to a new family of representation-learning algorithms, showing that the upper bound of the expected treatment effect estimation error is determined by two factors: the outcome generalization-error of the representation and the distance between the treated and control distributions induced by the representation. To achieve minimal dissimilarity in learning such distributions, in this work we propose a specific auto-balancing, self-supervised objective. Experiments on real and benchmark datasets revealed that our approach consistently produced less biased estimates than previously published state-of-the-art methods. We demonstrate that the reduction in error can be directly attributed to the ability to learn representations that explicitly reduce such dissimilarity; further, in case of violations of the positivity assumption (frequent in observational data), we show our approach performs significantly better than the previous state of the art. Thus, by learning representations that induce similar distributions of the treated and control cohorts, we present evidence to support the error bound dissimilarity hypothesis as well as providing a new state-of-the-art model for causal effect estimation.

Doubly-robust methods for differences in restricted mean lifetimes using pseudo-observations.

In clinical studies or trials comparing survival times between two treatment groups, the restricted mean lifetime (RML), defined as the expectation of the survival from time 0 to a prespecified time-point, is often the quantity of interest that is readily interpretable to clinicians without any modeling restrictions. It is well known that if the treatments are not randomized (as in observational studies), covariate adjustment is necessary to account for treatment imbalances due to confounding factors. In this article, we propose a simple doubly-robust pseudo-value approach to effectively estimate the difference in the RML between two groups (akin to a metric for estimating average causal effects), while accounting for confounders. The proposed method combines two general approaches: (a) group-specific regression models for the time-to-event and covariate information, and (b) inverse probability of treatment assignment weights, where the RMLs are replaced by the corresponding pseudo-observations for survival outcomes, thereby mitigating the estimation complexities in presence of censoring. The proposed estimator is double-robust, in the sense that it is consistent if at least one of the two working models remains correct. In addition, we explore the potential of available machine learning algorithms in causal inference to reduce possible bias of the causal estimates in presence of a complex association between the survival outcome and covariates. We conduct extensive simulation studies to assess the finite-sample performance of the pseudo-value causal effect estimators. Furthermore, we illustrate our methodology via application to a dataset from a breast cancer cohort study. The proposed method is implementable using the R package drRML, available in GitHub.

Impact of the matching algorithm on the treatment effect estimate: A neutral comparison study.

Propensity score matching is increasingly being used in the medical literature. Choice of matching algorithms, reporting quality, and estimands are oftentimes not discussed. We evaluated the impact of propensity score matching algorithms, based on a recent clinical dataset, with three commonly used outcomes. The resulting estimands for different strengths of treatment effects were compared in a neutral comparison study and based on a thoroughly designed simulation study. Different algorithms yielded different levels of balance after matching. Along with full matching and genetic matching with replacement, good balance was achieved with nearest neighbor matching with caliper but thereby more than one fifth of the treated units were discarded. Average marginal treatment effect estimates were least biased with genetic or nearest neighbor matching, both with replacement and full matching. Double adjustment yielded conditional treatment effects that were closer to the true values, throughout. The choice of the matching algorithm had an impact on covariate balance after matching as well as treatment effect estimates. In comparison, genetic matching with replacement yielded better covariate balance than all other matching algorithms. A literature review in the British Medical Journal including its subjournals revealed frequent use of propensity score matching; however, the use of different matching algorithms before treatment effect estimation was only reported in one out of 21 studies. Propensity score matching is a methodology for causal treatment effect estimation from observational data; however, the methodological difficulties and low reporting quality in applied medical research need to be addressed.

Causal Proportional Hazards Estimation with a Binary Instrumental Variable.

Instrumental variables (IV) are a useful tool for estimating causal effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding. IV methods are well developed for uncensored outcomes, particularly for structural linear equation models, where simple two-stage estimation schemes are available. The extension of these methods to survival settings is challenging, partly because of the nonlinearity of the popular survival regression models and partly because of the complications associated with right censoring or other survival features. Motivated by the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer screening trial, we develop a simple causal hazard ratio estimator in a proportional hazards model with right censored data. The method exploits a special characterization of IV which enables the use of an intuitive inverse weighting scheme that is generally applicable to more complex survival settings with left truncation, competing risks, or recurrent events. We rigorously establish the asymptotic properties of the estimators, and provide plug-in variance estimators. The proposed method can be implemented in standard software, and is evaluated through extensive simulation studies. We apply the proposed IV method to a data set from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial to delineate the causal effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer survival which may be confounded by informative noncompliance with the assigned screening regimen.

Reporting non-adherence in cluster randomised trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment non-adherence in randomised trials refers to situations where some participants do not receive their allocated treatment as intended. For cluster randomised trials, where the unit of randomisation is a group of participants, non-adherence may occur at the cluster or individual level. When non-adherence occurs, randomisation no longer guarantees that the relationship between treatment receipt and outcome is unconfounded, and the power to detect the treatment effects in intention-to-treat analysis may be reduced. Thus, recording adherence and estimating the causal treatment effect adequately are of interest for clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of reporting of non-adherence issues in published cluster trials and to establish which methods are currently being used for addressing non-adherence, if any, and whether clustering is accounted for in these. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 132 cluster trials published in English in 2011 previously identified through a search in PubMed. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty three cluster trials were included in this systematic review. Non-adherence was reported in 56 cluster trials. Among these, 19 reported a treatment efficacy estimate: per protocol in 15 and as treated in 4. No study discussed the assumptions made by these methods, their plausibility or the sensitivity of the results to deviations from these assumptions. LIMITATIONS: The year of publication of the cluster trials included in this review (2011) could be considered a limitation of this study; however, no new guidelines regarding the reporting and the handling of non-adherence for cluster trials have been published since. In addition, a single reviewer undertook the data extraction. To mitigate this, a second reviewer conducted a validation of the extraction process on 15 randomly selected reports. Agreement was satisfactory (93%). CONCLUSION: Despite the recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement extension to cluster randomised trials, treatment adherence is under-reported. Among the trials providing adherence information, there was substantial variation in how adherence was defined, handled and reported. Researchers should discuss the assumptions required for the results to be interpreted causally and whether these are scientifically plausible in their studies. Sensitivity analyses to study the robustness of the results to departures from these assumptions should be performed.

Double robust estimator of average causal treatment effect for censored medical cost data.

In observational studies, estimation of average causal treatment effect on a patient's response should adjust for confounders that are associated with both treatment exposure and response. In addition, the response, such as medical cost, may have incomplete follow-up. In this article, a double robust estimator is proposed for average causal treatment effect for right censored medical cost data. The estimator is double robust in the sense that it remains consistent when either the model for the treatment assignment or the regression model for the response is correctly specified. Double robust estimators increase the likelihood the results will represent a valid inference. Asymptotic normality is obtained for the proposed estimator, and an estimator for the asymptotic variance is also derived. Simulation studies show good finite sample performance of the proposed estimator and a real data analysis using the proposed method is provided as illustration. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Causal inference for community-based multi-layered intervention study.

Estimating causal treatment effect for randomized controlled trials under post-treatment confounding, that is, noncompliance and informative dropouts, is becoming an important problem in intervention/prevention studies when the treatment exposures are not completely controlled. When confounding is present in a study, the traditional intention-to-treat approach could underestimate the treatment effect because of insufficient exposure of treatment. In the recent two decades, many papers have been published to address such confounders to investigate the causal relationship between treatment and outcome of interest based on different modeling strategies. Most of the existing approaches, however, are suitable only for standard experiments. In this paper, we propose a new class of structural functional response model to address post-treatment confounding in complex multi-layered intervention studies within a longitudinal data setting. The new approach offers robust inference and is readily implemented. We illustrate and assess the performance of the proposed structural functional response model using both real and simulated data.

A tutorial comparing different covariate balancing methods with an application evaluating the causal effects of substance use treatment programs for adolescents.

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for measuring causal effects. However, they are often not always feasible, and causal treatment effects must be estimated from observational data. Observational studies do not allow robust conclusions about causal relationships unless statistical techniques account for the imbalance of pretreatment confounders across groups and key assumptions hold. Propensity score and balance weighting (PSBW) are useful techniques that aim to reduce the observed imbalances between treatment groups by weighting the groups to look alike on the observed confounders. Notably, there are many methods available to estimate PSBW. However, it is unclear a priori which will achieve the best trade-off between covariate balance and effective sample size for a given application. Moreover, it is critical to assess the validity of key assumptions required for robust estimation of the needed treatment effects, including the overlap and no unmeasured confounding assumptions. We present a step-by-step guide to the use of PSBW for estimation of causal treatment effects that includes steps on how to evaluate overlap before the analysis, obtain estimates of PSBW using multiple methods and select the optimal one, check for covariate balance on multiple metrics, and assess sensitivity of findings (both the estimated treatment effect and statistical significance) to unobserved confounding. We illustrate the key steps using a case study examining the relative effectiveness of substance use treatment programs and provide a user-friendly Shiny application that can implement the proposed steps for any application with binary treatments.

Unifying instrumental variable and inverse probability weighting approaches for inference of causal treatment effect and unmeasured confounding in observational studies.

Confounding is a major concern when using data from observational studies to infer the causal effect of a treatment. Instrumental variables, when available, have been used to construct bound estimates on population average treatment effects when outcomes are binary and unmeasured confounding exists. With continuous outcomes, meaningful bounds are more challenging to obtain because the domain of the outcome is unrestricted. In this paper, we propose to unify the instrumental variable and inverse probability weighting methods, together with suitable assumptions in the context of an observational study, to construct meaningful bounds on causal treatment effects. The contextual assumptions are imposed in terms of the potential outcomes that are partially identified by data. The inverse probability weighting component incorporates a sensitivity parameter to encode the effect of unmeasured confounding. The instrumental variable and inverse probability weighting methods are unified using the principal stratification. By solving the resulting system of estimating equations, we are able to quantify both the causal treatment effect and the sensitivity parameter (i.e. the degree of the unmeasured confounding). We demonstrate our method by analyzing data from the HIV Epidemiology Research Study.