BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Colin B. Fogarty

Colin B. Fogarty appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
MethodologyApplications

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

No-harm calibration for generalized Oaxaca-Blinder estimators

In randomized experiments, adjusting for observed features when estimating treatment effects has been proposed as a way to improve asymptotic efficiency. However, only linear regression has been proven to form an estimate of the average treatment effect that is asymptotically no less efficient than the treated-minus-control difference in means regardless of the true data generating process. Randomized treatment assignment provides this "do-no-harm" property, with neither truth of a linear model nor a generative model for the outcomes being required. We present a general calibration method which confers the same no-harm property onto estimators leveraging a broad class of nonlinear models. This recovers the usual regression-adjusted estimator when ordinary least squares is used, and further provides non-inferior treatment effect estimators using methods such as logistic and Poisson regression. The resulting estimators are non-inferior to both the difference in means estimator and to treatment effect estimators that have not undergone calibration. We show that our estimator is asymptotically equivalent to an inverse probability weighted estimator using a logit link with predicted potential outcomes as covariates. In a simulation study, we demonstrate that common nonlinear estimators without our calibration procedure may perform markedly worse than both the calibrated estimator and the unadjusted difference in means.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Testing weak nulls in matched observational studies

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 to randomized experiments and to paired observational studies, we show for general matched designs that over a large class of test statistics, any valid sensitivity analysis for the entirety of the weak null must be unnecessarily conservative if Fisher's sharp null of no treatment effect for any individual also holds. We present a sensitivity analysis valid for the weak null, and illustrate why it is generally conservative if the sharp null holds through new connections to inverse probability weighted estimators. An alternative procedure is presented that is asymptotically sharp if treatment effects are constant, and that is valid for the weak null under additional restrictions which may be deemed benign by practitioners. Simulations demonstrate that this alternative procedure results in a valid sensitivity analysis for the weak null hypothesis under a host of reasonable data-generating processes. The procedures allow practitioners to assess robustness of estimated sample average treatment effects to hidden bias while allowing for unspecified effect heterogeneity in matched observational studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Discrete Optimization for Interpretable Study Populations and Randomization Inference in an Observational Study of Severe Sepsis Mortality

Motivated by an observational study of the effect of hospital ward versus intensive care unit admission on severe sepsis mortality, we develop methods to address two common problems in observational studies: (1) when there is a lack of covariate overlap between the treated and control groups, how to define an interpretable study population wherein inference can be conducted without extrapolating with respect to important variables; and (2) how to use randomization inference to form confidence intervals for the average treatment effect with binary outcomes. Our solution to problem (1) incorporates existing suggestions in the literature while yielding a study population that is easily understood in terms of the covariates themselves, and can be solved using an efficient branch-and-bound algorithm. We address problem (2) by solving a linear integer program to utilize the worst case variance of the average treatment effect among values for unobserved potential outcomes that are compatible with the null hypothesis. Our analysis finds no evidence for a difference between the sixty day mortality rates if all individuals were admitted to the ICU and if all patients were admitted to the hospital ward among less severely ill patients and among patients with cryptic septic shock. We implement our methodology in R, providing scripts in the supplementary material.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Equivalence testing for functional data with an application to comparing pulmonary function devices

Equivalence testing for scalar data has been well addressed in the literature, however, the same cannot be said for functional data. The resultant complexity from maintaining the functional structure of the data, rather than using a scalar transformation to reduce dimensionality, renders the existing literature on equivalence testing inadequate for the desired inference. We propose a framework for equivalence testing for functional data within both the frequentist and Bayesian paradigms. This framework combines extensions of scalar methodologies with new methodology for functional data. Our frequentist hypothesis test extends the Two One-Sided Testing (TOST) procedure for equivalence testing to the functional regime. We conduct this TOST procedure through the use of the nonparametric bootstrap. Our Bayesian methodology employs a functional analysis of variance model, and uses a flexible class of Gaussian Processes for both modeling our data and as prior distributions. Through our analysis, we introduce a model for heteroscedastic variances within a Gaussian Process by modeling variance curves via Log-Gaussian Process priors. We stress the importance of choosing prior distributions that are commensurate with the prior state of knowledge and evidence regarding practical equivalence. We illustrate these testing methods through data from an ongoing method comparison study between two devices for pulmonary function testing. In so doing, we provide not only concrete motivation for equivalence testing for functional data, but also a blueprint for researchers who hope to conduct similar inference.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Comparisons in Matched Observational Studies through Quadratically Constrained Linear Programming

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 variable, accounting for multiple comparisons through the existing methods yields overly conservative results when there are multiple outcome variables of interest. This stems from the fact that unmeasured confounding cannot affect the probability of assignment to treatment differently depending on the outcome being analyzed. Existing methods allow this to occur by combining the results of individual sensitivity analyses to assess whether at least one hypothesis is significant, which in turn results in an overly pessimistic assessment of a study's sensitivity to unobserved biases. By solving a quadratically constrained linear program, we are able to perform a sensitivity analysis while enforcing that unmeasured confounding must have the same impact on the treatment assignment probabilities across outcomes for each individual in the study. We show that this allows for uniform improvements in the power of a sensitivity analysis not only for testing the overall null of no effect, but also for null hypotheses on \textit{specific} outcome variables while strongly controlling the familywise error rate. We illustrate our method through an observational study on the effect of smoking on naphthalene exposure.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access