Source author record

Dylan Small

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Methodology Applications math.ST Statistics Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works

4topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

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.

preprint2020arXiv

A calibrated sensitivity analysis for matched observational studies with application to the effect of second-hand smoke exposure on blood lead levels in U.S. children

Matched observational studies are commonly used to study treatment effects in non-randomized data. After matching for observed confounders, there could remain bias from unobserved confounders. A standard way to address this problem is to do a sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis asks how sensitive the result is to a hypothesized unmeasured confounder U. One method, known as simultaneous sensitivity analysis, has two sensitivity parameters: one relating U to treatment assignment and the other to response. This method assumes that in each matched set, U is distributed to make the bias worst. This approach has two concerning features. First, this worst case distribution of U in each matched set does not correspond to a realistic distribution of U in the population. Second, sensitivity parameters are in absolute scales which are hard to compare to observed covariates. We address these concerns by introducing a method that endows U with a probability distribution in the population and calibrates the unmeasured confounder to the observed covariates. We compare our method to simultaneous sensitivity analysis in simulations and in a study of the effect of second-hand smoke exposure on blood lead levels in U.S. children.

preprint2020arXiv

Inference for a test-negative case-control study with added controls

Test-negative designs with added controls have recently been proposed to study COVID-19. An individual is test-positive or test-negative accordingly if they took a test for a disease but tested positive or tested negative. Adding a control group to a comparison of test-positives vs test-negatives is useful since additional comparison of test-positives vs controls can have potential biases different from the first comparison. Bonferroni correction ensures necessary type-I error control for these two comparisons done simultaneously. We propose two new methods for inference which have better interpretability and higher statistical power for these designs. These methods add a third comparison that is essentially independent of the first comparison, but our proposed second method often pays much less for these three comparisons than what a Bonferroni correction would pay for the two comparisons.

preprint2016arXiv

Control Function Instrumental Variable Estimation of Nonlinear Causal Effect Models

The instrumental variable method consistently estimates the effect of a treatment when there is unmeasured confounding and a valid instrumental variable. A valid instrumental variable is a variable that is independent of unmeasured confounders and affects the treatment but does not have a direct effect on the outcome beyond its effect on the treatment. Two commonly used estimators for using an instrumental variable to estimate a treatment effect are the two stage least squares estimator and the control function estimator. For linear causal effect models, these two estimators are equivalent, but for nonlinear causal effect models, the estimators are different. We provide a systematic comparison of these two estimators for nonlinear causal effect models and develop an approach to combing the two estimators that generally performs better than either one alone. We show that the control function estimator is a two stage least squares estimator with an augmented set of instrumental variables. If these augmented instrumental variables are valid, then the control function estimator can be much more efficient than usual two stage least squares without the augmented instrumental variables while if the augmented instrumental variables are not valid, then the control function estimator may be inconsistent while the usual two stage least squares remains consistent. We apply the Hausman test to test whether the augmented instrumental variables are valid and construct a pretest estimator based on this test. The pretest estimator is shown to work well in a simulation study. An application to the effect of exposure to violence on time preference is considered.

preprint2015arXiv

Selection bias when using instrumental variable methods to compare two treatments but more than two treatments are available

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are widely used to adjust for the bias in estimating treatment effects caused by unmeasured confounders in observational studies. In this manuscript, we provide empirical and theoretical evidence that the IV methods may result in biased treatment effects if applied on a data set in which subjects are preselected based on their received treatments. We frame this as a selection bias problem and propose a procedure that identifies the treatment effect of interest as a function of a vector of sensitivity parameters. We also list assumptions under which analyzing the preselected data does not lead to a biased treatment effect estimate. The performance of the proposed method is examined using simulation studies. We applied our method on The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to estimate the comparative effect of metformin and sulfonylureas on weight gain among diabetic patients.

preprint2014arXiv

Instrumental Variable Estimation When Compliance is not Deterministic: The Stochastic Monotonicity Assumption

The instrumental variables (IV) method is a method for making causal inferences about the effect of a treatment based on an observational study in which there are unmeasured confounding variables. The method requires a valid IV, a variable that is independent of the unmeasured confounding variables and is associated with the treatment but which has no effect on the outcome beyond its effect on the treatment. An additional assumption that is often made for the IV method is deterministic monotonicity, which is an assumption that for each subject, the level of the treatment that a subject would take if given a level of the IV is a monotonic increasing function of the level of the IV. Under deterministic monotonicity, the IV method identifies the average treatment effect for the compliers (those subject who would take the treatment if encouraged to do so by the IV and not take the treatment if not encouraged). However, deterministic monotonicity is sometimes not realistic. We introduce a stochastic monotonicity condition which relaxes deterministic monotonicity in that it does not require that a monotonic increasing relationship hold within subjects between the levels of the IV and the level of the treatment that the subject would take if given a level of the IV, but only that a monotonic increasing relationship hold across subjects between the IV and the treatment in a certain manner. We show that under stochastic monotonicity, the IV method identifies a weighted average of treatment effects with greater weight on subgroups of subjects on whom the IV has a stronger effect. We provide bounds on the global average treatment effect under stochastic monotonicity and a sensitivity analysis for violations of the stochastic monotonicity assumption.