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

Tyler J. VanderWeele

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryApplicationsphysics.hist-phphysics.soc-phquant-phSocial and Information Networks

Catalog footprint

What is connected

14works
8topics
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

14 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A statistical test to reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model

Factor analysis is often used to assess whether a single univariate latent variable is sufficient to explain most of the covariance among a set of indicators for some underlying construct. When evidence suggests that a single factor is adequate, research often proceeds by using a univariate summary of the indicators in subsequent research. Implicit in such practices is the assumption that it is the underlying latent, rather than the indicators, that is causally efficacious. The assumption that the indicators do not have effects on anything subsequent, and that they are themselves only affected by antecedents through the underlying latent is a strong assumption, effectively imposing a structural interpretation on the latent factor model. In this paper, we show that this structural assumption has empirically testable implications, even though the latent variable itself is unobserved. We develop a statistical test to potentially reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model. We apply this test to data concerning associations between the Satisfaction-with-Life-Scale and subsequent all-cause mortality, which provides strong evidence against a structural interpretation for a univariate latent underlying the scale. Discussion is given to the implications of this result for the development, evaluation, and use of measures and for the use of factor analysis itself.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the dimensional indeterminacy of one-wave factor analysis under causal effects

It is shown, with two sets of indicators that separately load on two distinct factors, independent of one another conditional on the past, that if it is the case that at least one of the factors causally affects the other, then, in many settings, the process will converge to a factor model in which a single factor will suffice to capture the covariance structure among the indicators. Factor analysis with one wave of data can then not distinguish between factor models with a single factor versus those with two factors that are causally related. Therefore, unless causal relations between factors can be ruled out a priori, alleged empirical evidence from one-wave factor analysis for a single factor still leaves open the possibilities of a single factor or of two factors that causally affect one another. The implications for interpreting the factor structure of psychological scales, such as self-report scales for anxiety and depression, or for happiness and purpose, are discussed. The results are further illustrated through simulations to gain insight into the practical implications of the results in more realistic settings prior to the convergence of the processes. Some further generalizations to an arbitrary number of underlying factors are noted.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Constructed measures and causal inference: towards a new model of measurement for psychosocial constructs

Psychosocial constructs can only be assessed indirectly, and measures are typically formed by a combination of indicators that are thought to relate to the construct. Reflective and formative measurement models offer different conceptualizations of the relation between the indicators and what is sometimes conceived of as a univariate latent variable supposed to correspond in some way to the construct. It is argued that the empirical implications of reflective and formative models will often be violated by data since the causally relevant constituents will generally be multivariate, not univariate. These empirical implications can be formally tested but factor analysis is not adequate to do so. It is argued that formative models misconstrue the relationship between the constructed measures and the underlying reality by which causal processes operate, but that reflective models misconstrue the nature of the underlying reality itself by typically presuming that the constituents of it that are causally efficacious are unidimensional. The ensuing problems arising from these misconstruals are discussed. A causal interpretation is proposed of associations between constructed measures and various outcomes that is applicable to both reflective and formative models and is applicable even if the usual assumptions of these models are violated. An outline for a new model of the process of measure construction is put forward. Discussion is given to the practical implications of these observations and proposals for the provision of definitions, the selection of items, item-by-item analyses, the construction of measures, and the interpretation of the associations of these measures with subsequent outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the identification of individual principal stratum direct, natural direct and pleiotropic effects without cross world independence assumptions

The analysis of natural direct and principal stratum direct effects has a controversial history in statistics and causal inference as these effects are commonly identified with either untestable cross world independence or graphical assumptions. This paper demonstrates that the presence of individual level natural direct and principal stratum direct effects can be identified without cross world independence assumptions. We also define a new type of causal effect, called pleiotropy, that is of interest in genomics, and provide empirical conditions to detect such an effect as well. Our results are applicable for all types of distributions concerning the mediator and outcome.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Quantifying and Detecting Individual Level `Always Survivor' Causal Effects Under `Truncation by Death' and Censoring Through Time

The analysis of causal effects when the outcome of interest is possibly truncated by death has a long history in statistics and causal inference. The survivor average causal effect is commonly identified with more assumptions than those guaranteed by the design of a randomized clinical trial or using sensitivity analysis. This paper demonstrates that individual level causal effects in the `always survivor' principal stratum can be identified with no stronger identification assumptions than randomization. We illustrate the practical utility of our methods using data from a clinical trial on patients with prostate cancer. Our methodology is the first and, as of yet, only proposed procedure that enables detecting causal effects in the presence of truncation by death using only the assumptions that are guaranteed by design of the clinical trial. This methodology is applicable to all types of outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding

It is often of interest to decompose a total effect of an exposure into the component that acts on the outcome through some mediator and the component that acts independently through other pathways. Said another way, we are interested in the direct and indirect effects of the exposure on the outcome. Even if the exposure is randomly assigned, it is often infeasible to randomize the mediator, leaving the mediator-outcome confounding not fully controlled. We develop a sensitivity analysis technique that can bound the direct and indirect effects without parametric assumptions about the unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Causal Diagrams for Interference

The term "interference" has been used to describe any setting in which one subject's exposure may affect another subject's outcome. We use causal diagrams to distinguish among three causal mechanisms that give rise to interference. The first causal mechanism by which interference can operate is a direct causal effect of one individual's treatment on another individual's outcome; we call this direct interference. Interference by contagion is present when one individual's outcome may affect the outcomes of other individuals with whom he comes into contact. Then giving treatment to the first individual could have an indirect effect on others through the treated individual's outcome. The third pathway by which interference may operate is allocational interference. Treatment in this case allocates individuals to groups; through interactions within a group, individuals may affect one another's outcomes in any number of ways. In many settings, more than one type of interference will be present simultaneously. The causal effects of interest differ according to which types of interference are present, as do the conditions under which causal effects are identifiable. Using causal diagrams for interference, we describe these differences, give criteria for the identification of important causal effects, and discuss applications to infectious diseases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Interference and Sensitivity Analysis

Causal inference with interference is a rapidly growing area. The literature has begun to relax the "no-interference" assumption that the treatment received by one individual does not affect the outcomes of other individuals. In this paper we briefly review the literature on causal inference in the presence of interference when treatments have been randomized. We then consider settings in which causal effects in the presence of interference are not identified, either because randomization alone does not suffice for identification or because treatment is not randomized and there may be unmeasured confounders of the treatment-outcome relationship. We develop sensitivity analysis techniques for these settings. We describe several sensitivity analysis techniques for the infectiousness effect which, in a vaccine trial, captures the effect of the vaccine of one person on protecting a second person from infection even if the first is infected. We also develop two sensitivity analysis techniques for causal effects under interference in the presence of unmeasured confounding which generalize analogous techniques when interference is absent. These two techniques for unmeasured confounding are compared and contrasted.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Differential Geometry of Homogeneity Spaces Across Effect Scales

If an effect measure is more homogeneous than others, then its value is more likely to be stable across different subgroups or subpopulations. Therefore, it is of great importance to find a more homogeneous effect measure that allows for transportability of research results. For a binary outcome, applied researchers often claim that the risk difference is more heterogeneous than the risk ratio or odds ratio, because they find, based on evidence from surveys of meta-analyses, that the null hypotheses of homogeneity are rejected more often for the risk difference than for the risk ratio and odds ratio. However, the evidence for these claims are far from satisfactory, because of different statistical powers of the homogeneity tests under different effect scales. For binary treatment, covariate and outcome, we theoretically quantify the homogeneity of different effect scales. Because when homogeneity holds the four outcome probabilities lie in a three dimensional sub-space of the four dimensional space, we can use results from differential geometry to compute the volumes of these three dimensional spaces to compare the relative homogeneity of the risk difference, risk ratio, and odds ratio. We demonstrate that the homogeneity space for the risk difference has the smallest volume, and the homogeneity space for the odds ratio has the largest volume, providing some further evidence for the previous claim that the risk difference is more heterogeneous than the risk ratio and odds ratio.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Generalized Cornfield conditions for the risk difference

A central question in causal inference with observational studies is the sensitivity of conclusions to unmeasured confounding. The classical Cornfield condition allows us to assess whether an unmeasured binary confounder can explain away the observed relative risk of the exposure on the outcome. It states that for an unmeasured confounder to explain away an observed relative risk, the association between the unmeasured confounder and the exposure, and also that between the unmeasured confounder and the outcome, must both be larger than the observed relative risk. In this paper, we extend the classical Cornfield condition in three directions. First, we consider analogous conditions for the risk difference, and allow for a categorical, not just a binary, unmeasured confounder. Second, we provide more stringent thresholds which the maximum of the above-mentioned associations must satisfy, rather than simply weaker conditions that both must satisfy. Third, we show that all previous results on Cornfield conditions hold under weaker assumptions than previously used. We illustrate their potential applications by real examples, where our new conditions give more information than the classical ones.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Joint analysis of SNP and gene expression data in genetic association studies of complex diseases

Genetic association studies have been a popular approach for assessing the association between common Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and complex diseases. However, other genomic data involved in the mechanism from SNPs to disease, for example, gene expressions, are usually neglected in these association studies. In this paper, we propose to exploit gene expression information to more powerfully test the association between SNPs and diseases by jointly modeling the relations among SNPs, gene expressions and diseases. We propose a variance component test for the total effect of SNPs and a gene expression on disease risk. We cast the test within the causal mediation analysis framework with the gene expression as a potential mediator. For eQTL SNPs, the use of gene expression information can enhance power to test for the total effect of a SNP-set, which is the combined direct and indirect effects of the SNPs mediated through the gene expression, on disease risk. We show that the test statistic under the null hypothesis follows a mixture of $χ^2$ distributions, which can be evaluated analytically or empirically using the resampling-based perturbation method. We construct tests for each of three disease models that are determined by SNPs only, SNPs and gene expression, or include also their interactions. As the true disease model is unknown in practice, we further propose an omnibus test to accommodate different underlying disease models. We evaluate the finite sample performance of the proposed methods using simulation studies, and show that our proposed test performs well and the omnibus test can almost reach the optimal power where the disease model is known and correctly specified. We apply our method to reanalyze the overall effect of the SNP-set and expression of the ORMDL3 gene on the risk of asthma.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Vaccines, Contagion, and Social Networks

Consider the causal effect that one individual's treatment may have on another individual's outcome when the outcome is contagious, with specific application to the effect of vaccination on an infectious disease outcome. The effect of one individual's vaccination on another's outcome can be decomposed into two different causal effects, called the "infectiousness" and "contagion" effects. We present identifying assumptions and estimation or testing procedures for infectiousness and contagion effects in two different settings: (1) using data sampled from independent groups of observations, and (2) using data collected from a single interdependent social network. The methods that we propose for social network data require fitting generalized linear models (GLMs). GLMs and other statistical models that require independence across subjects have been used widely to estimate causal effects in social network data, but, because the subjects in networks are presumably not independent, the use of such models is generally invalid, resulting in inference that is expected to be anticonservative. We introduce a way to ensure that GLM residuals are uncorrelated across subjects despite the fact that outcomes are non-independent. This simultaneously demonstrates the possibility of using GLMs and related statistical models for network data and highlights their limitations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

General theory for interactions in sufficient cause models with dichotomous exposures

The sufficient-component cause framework assumes the existence of sets of sufficient causes that bring about an event. For a binary outcome and an arbitrary number of binary causes any set of potential outcomes can be replicated by positing a set of sufficient causes; typically this representation is not unique. A sufficient cause interaction is said to be present if within all representations there exists a sufficient cause in which two or more particular causes are all present. A singular interaction is said to be present if for some subset of individuals there is a unique minimal sufficient cause. Empirical and counterfactual conditions are given for sufficient cause interactions and singular interactions between an arbitrary number of causes. Conditions are given for cases in which none, some or all of a given set of causes affect the outcome monotonically. The relations between these results, interactions in linear statistical models and Pearl's probability of causation are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access