BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Elizabeth L. Ogburn

Elizabeth L. Ogburn contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyApplicationsmath.STStatistics TheoryMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
9works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

9 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Causal mediation analysis: From simple to more robust strategies for estimation of marginal natural (in)direct effects

This paper aims to provide practitioners of causal mediation analysis with a better understanding of estimation options. We take as inputs two familiar strategies (weighting and model-based prediction) and a simple way of combining them (weighted models), and show how a range of estimators can be generated, with different modeling requirements and robustness properties. The primary goal is to help build intuitive appreciation for robust estimation that is conducive to sound practice. A second goal is to provide a "menu" of estimators that practitioners can choose from for the estimation of marginal natural (in)direct effects. The estimators generated from this exercise include some that coincide or are similar to existing estimators and others that have not previously appeared in the literature. We note several different ways to estimate the weights for cross-world weighting based on three expressions of the weighting function, including one that is novel; and show how to check the resulting covariate and mediator balance. We use a random continuous weights bootstrap to obtain confidence intervals, and also derive general asymptotic variance formulas for the estimators. The estimators are illustrated using data from an adolescent alcohol use prevention study.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Causal inference for social network data

We describe semiparametric estimation and inference for causal effects using observational data from a single social network. Our asymptotic results are the first to allow for dependence of each observation on a growing number of other units as sample size increases. In addition, while previous methods have implicitly permitted only one of two possible sources of dependence among social network observations, we allow for both dependence due to transmission of information across network ties and for dependence due to latent similarities among nodes sharing ties. We propose new causal effects that are specifically of interest in social network settings, such as interventions on network ties and network structure. We use our methods to reanalyze an influential and controversial study that estimated causal peer effects of obesity using social network data from the Framingham Heart Study; after accounting for network structure we find no evidence for causal peer effects.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Identifying effects of multiple treatments in the presence of unmeasured confounding

Identification of treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding is a persistent problem in the social, biological, and medical sciences. The problem of unmeasured confounding in settings with multiple treatments is most common in statistical genetics and bioinformatics settings, where researchers have developed many successful statistical strategies without engaging deeply with the causal aspects of the problem. Recently there have been a number of attempts to bridge the gap between these statistical approaches and causal inference, but these attempts have either been shown to be flawed or have relied on fully parametric assumptions. In this paper, we propose two strategies for identifying and estimating causal effects of multiple treatments in the presence of unmeasured confounding. The auxiliary variables approach leverages variables that are not causally associated with the outcome; in the case of a univariate confounder, our method only requires one auxiliary variable, unlike existing instrumental variable methods that would require as many instruments as there are treatments. An alternative null treatments approach relies on the assumption that at least half of the confounded treatments have no causal effect on the outcome, but does not require a priori knowledge of which treatments are null. Our identification strategies do not impose parametric assumptions on the outcome model and do not rest on estimation of the confounder. This paper extends and generalizes existing work on unmeasured confounding with a single treatment and models commonly used in bioinformatics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Causal Effects in Twin Studies: the Role of Interference

The use of twins designs to address causal questions is becoming increasingly popular. A standard assumption is that there is no interference between twins---that is, no twin's exposure has a causal impact on their co-twin's outcome. However, there may be settings in which this assumption would not hold, and this would (1) impact the causal interpretation of parameters obtained by commonly used existing methods; (2) change which effects are of greatest interest; and (3) impact the conditions under which we may estimate these effects. We explore these issues, and we derive semi-parametric efficient estimators for causal effects in the presence of interference between twins. Using data from the Minnesota Twin Family Study, we apply our estimators to assess whether twins' consumption of alcohol in early adolescence may have a causal impact on their co-twins' substance use later in life.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Causal inference, social networks, and chain graphs

Traditionally, statistical and causal inference on human subjects rely on the assumption that individuals are independently affected by treatments or exposures. However, recently there has been increasing interest in settings, such as social networks, where individuals may interact with one another such that treatments may spill over from the treated individual to their social contacts and outcomes may be contagious. Existing models proposed for causal inference using observational data from networks of interacting individuals have two major shortcomings. First, they often require a level of granularity in the data that is practically infeasible to collect in most settings, and second, the models are high-dimensional and often too big to fit to the available data. In this paper we illustrate and justify a parsimonious parameterization for network data with interference and contagion. Our parameterization corresponds to a particular family of graphical models known as chain graphs. We argue that, in some settings, chain graph models approximate the marginal distribution of a snapshot of a longitudinal data generating process on interacting units. We illustrate the use of chain graphs for causal inference about collective decision making in social networks using data from U.S. Supreme Court decisions between 1994 and 2004 and in simulations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Counterexamples to "The Blessings of Multiple Causes" by Wang and Blei

This note has been updated (April, 2020) to respond to "Towards Clarifying the Theory of the Deconfounder" by Yixin Wang, David M. Blei (arXiv:2003.04948). This original note, posted in January, 2020, is meant to complement our previous comment on "The Blessings of Multiple Causes" by Wang and Blei (2019). We provide a more succinct and transparent explanation of the fact that the deconfounder does not control for multi-cause confounding. The argument given in Wang and Blei (2019) makes two mistakes: (1) attempting to infer independence conditional on one variable from independence conditional on a different, unrelated variable, and (2) attempting to infer joint independence from pairwise independence. We give two simple counterexamples to the deconfounder claim.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Network Dependence Can Lead to Spurious Associations and Invalid Inference

Researchers across the health and social sciences generally assume that observations are independent, even while relying on convenience samples that draw subjects from one or a small number of communities, schools, hospitals, etc. A paradigmatic example of this is the Framingham Heart Study (FHS). Many of the limitations of such samples are well-known, but the issue of statistical dependence due to social network ties has not previously been addressed. We show that, along with anticonservative variance estimation, this can result in spurious associations due to network dependence. Using a statistical test that we adapted from one developed for spatial autocorrelation, we test for network dependence in several of the thousands of influential papers that have been published using FHS data. Results suggest that some of the many decades of research on coronary heart disease, other health outcomes, and peer influence using FHS data may suffer from spurious associations, error-prone point estimates, and anticonservative inference due to unacknowledged network dependence. These issues are not unique to the FHS; as researchers in psychology, medicine, and beyond grapple with replication failures, this unacknowledged source of invalid statistical inference should be part of the conversation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Testing for Network and Spatial Autocorrelation

Testing for dependence has been a well-established component of spatial statistical analyses for decades. In particular, several popular test statistics have desirable properties for testing for the presence of spatial autocorrelation in continuous variables. In this paper we propose two contributions to the literature on tests for autocorrelation. First, we propose a new test for autocorrelation in categorical variables. While some methods currently exist for assessing spatial autocorrelation in categorical variables, the most popular method is unwieldy, somewhat ad hoc, and fails to provide grounds for a single omnibus test. Second, we discuss the importance of testing for autocorrelation in data sampled from the nodes of a network, motivated by social network applications. We demonstrate that our proposed statistic for categorical variables can both be used in the spatial and network setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

The magnitude and direction of collider bias for binary variables

Suppose we are interested in the effect of variable $X$ on variable $Y$. If $X$ and $Y$ both influence, or are associated with variables that influence, a common outcome, called a collider, then conditioning on the collider (or on a variable influenced by the collider -- its "child") induces a spurious association between $X$ and $Y$, which is known as collider bias. Characterizing the magnitude and direction of collider bias is crucial for understanding the implications of selection bias and for adjudicating decisions about whether to control for variables that are known to be associated with both exposure and outcome but could be either confounders or colliders. Considering a class of situations where all variables are binary, and where $X$ and $Y$ either are, or are respectively influenced by, two marginally independent causes of a collider, we derive collider bias that results from (i) conditioning on specific levels of, or (ii) linear regression adjustment for, the collider (or its child). We also derive simple conditions that determine the sign of such bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access