Source author record

Mats Julius Stensrud

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Methodology

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

1topics

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

Estimation of separable direct and indirect effects in continuous time

Many research questions involve time-to-event outcomes that can be prevented from occurring due to competing events. In these settings, we must be careful about the causal interpretation of classical statistical estimands. In particular, estimands on the hazard scale, such as ratios of cause specific or subdistribution hazards, are fundamentally hard to be interpret causally. Estimands on the risk scale, such as contrasts of cumulative incidence functions, do have a causal interpretation, but they only capture the total effect of the treatment on the event of interest; that is, effects both through and outside of the competing event. To disentangle causal treatment effects on the event of interest and competing events, the separable direct and indirect effects were recently introduced. Here we provide new results on the estimation of direct and indirect separable effects in continuous time. In particular, we derive the nonparametric influence function in continuous time and use it to construct an estimator that has certain robustness properties. We also propose a simple estimator based on semiparametric models for the two cause specific hazard functions. We describe the asymptotic properties of these estimators, and present results from simulation studies, suggesting that the estimators behave satisfactorily in finite samples. Finally, we re-analyze the prostate cancer trial from Stensrud et al (2020).

preprint2020arXiv

Transforming cumulative hazard estimates

Time to event outcomes are often evaluated on the hazard scale, but interpreting hazards may be difficult. Recently, there has been concern in the causal inference literature that hazards actually have a built in selection-effect that prevents simple causal interpretations. This is even a problem in randomized controlled trials, where hazard ratios have become a standard measure of treatment effects. Modeling on the hazard scale is nevertheless convenient, e.g. to adjust for covariates. Using hazards for intermediate calculations may therefore be desirable. Here, we provide a generic method for transforming hazard estimates consistently to other scales at which these built in selection effects are avoided. The method is based on differential equations, and generalize a well known relation between the Nelson-Aalen and Kaplan-Meier estimators. Using the martingale central limit theorem we also find that covariances can be estimated consistently for a large class of estimators, thus allowing for rapid calculations of confidence intervals. Hence, given cumulative hazard estimates based on e.g. Aalen's additive hazard model, we can obtain many other parameters without much more effort. We present several examples and associated estimators. Coverage and convergence speed is explored using simulations, suggesting that reliable estimates can be obtained in real-life scenarios.

preprint2019arXiv

Effect heterogeneity and variable selection for standardizing causal effects to a target population

The participants in randomized trials and other studies used for causal inference are often not representative of the populations seen by clinical decision-makers. To account for differences between populations, researchers may consider standardizing results to a target population. We discuss several different types of homogeneity conditions that are relevant for standardization: Homogeneity of effect measures, homogeneity of counterfactual outcome state transition parameters, and homogeneity of counterfactual distributions. Each of these conditions can be used to show that a particular standardization procedure will result in unbiased estimates of the effect in the target population, given assumptions about the relevant scientific context. We compare and contrast the homogeneity conditions, in particular their implications for selection of covariates for standardization and their implications for how to compute the standardized causal effect in the target population. While some of the recently developed counterfactual approaches to generalizability rely upon homogeneity conditions that avoid many of the problems associated with traditional approaches, they often require adjustment for a large (and possibly unfeasible) set of covariates.