• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两阶段工具变量法估计因果比值:偏倚分析。

Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias.

机构信息

Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA 19454-1099, U.S.A.

出版信息

Stat Med. 2011 Jul 10;30(15):1809-24. doi: 10.1002/sim.4241. Epub 2011 Apr 15.

DOI:10.1002/sim.4241
PMID:21495062
Abstract

We present closed-form expressions of asymptotic bias for the causal odds ratio from two estimation approaches of instrumental variable logistic regression: (i) the two-stage predictor substitution (2SPS) method and (ii) the two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) approach. Under the 2SPS approach, the first stage model yields the predicted value of treatment as a function of an instrument and covariates, and in the second stage model for the outcome, this predicted value replaces the observed value of treatment as a covariate. Under the 2SRI approach, the first stage is the same, but the residual term of the first stage regression is included in the second stage regression, retaining the observed treatment as a covariate. Our bias assessment is for a different context from that of Terza (J. Health Econ. 2008; 27(3):531-543), who focused on the causal odds ratio conditional on the unmeasured confounder, whereas we focus on the causal odds ratio among compliers under the principal stratification framework. Our closed-form bias results show that the 2SPS logistic regression generates asymptotically biased estimates of this causal odds ratio when there is no unmeasured confounding and that this bias increases with increasing unmeasured confounding. The 2SRI logistic regression is asymptotically unbiased when there is no unmeasured confounding, but when there is unmeasured confounding, there is bias and it increases with increasing unmeasured confounding. The closed-form bias results provide guidance for using these IV logistic regression methods. Our simulation results are consistent with our closed-form analytic results under different combinations of parameter settings.

摘要

我们提出了工具变量逻辑回归两种估计方法(即两阶段预测变量替代法(2SPS)和两阶段残差纳入法(2SRI))对因果比值比的渐近偏差的闭式表达式。在 2SPS 方法中,第一阶段模型将治疗的预测值表示为工具和协变量的函数,在第二阶段的结果模型中,该预测值替代治疗的观测值作为协变量。在 2SRI 方法中,第一阶段相同,但第一阶段回归的残差项被纳入第二阶段回归,保留治疗的观测值作为协变量。我们的偏差评估与特扎(J. Health Econ. 2008; 27(3):531-543)的不同,他关注的是在未测量混杂因素条件下的因果比值比,而我们关注的是在主要分层框架下的依从者中的因果比值比。我们的闭式偏差结果表明,当不存在未测量的混杂时,2SPS 逻辑回归会产生该因果比值比的渐近偏差估计,并且这种偏差随着未测量的混杂的增加而增加。当不存在未测量的混杂时,2SRI 逻辑回归是渐近无偏的,但当存在未测量的混杂时,就会出现偏差,并且随着未测量的混杂的增加而增加。闭式偏差结果为使用这些 IV 逻辑回归方法提供了指导。我们的模拟结果与不同参数设置组合下的闭式分析结果一致。

相似文献

1
Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias.两阶段工具变量法估计因果比值:偏倚分析。
Stat Med. 2011 Jul 10;30(15):1809-24. doi: 10.1002/sim.4241. Epub 2011 Apr 15.
2
Bias in estimating the causal hazard ratio when using two-stage instrumental variable methods.使用两阶段工具变量法时因果风险比估计中的偏差。
Stat Med. 2015 Jun 30;34(14):2235-65. doi: 10.1002/sim.6470. Epub 2015 Mar 20.
3
Simulation study of instrumental variable approaches with an application to a study of the antidiabetic effect of bezafibrate.工具变量方法的模拟研究及其在苯扎贝特抗糖尿病作用研究中的应用
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 May;21 Suppl 2:114-20. doi: 10.1002/pds.3252.
4
A general approach to evaluating the bias of 2-stage instrumental variable estimators.两阶段工具变量估计量偏差的一般评估方法。
Stat Med. 2018 May 30;37(12):1997-2015. doi: 10.1002/sim.7636. Epub 2018 Mar 23.
5
Bias analysis of the instrumental variable estimator as an estimator of the average causal effect.工具变量估计量作为平均因果效应估计量的偏差分析。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2010 Jan;31(1):12-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2009.10.003. Epub 2009 Oct 29.
6
Adjusting for bias and unmeasured confounding in Mendelian randomization studies with binary responses.在二元反应的孟德尔随机化研究中对偏倚和未测量的混杂因素进行调整。
Int J Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;37(5):1161-8. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn080. Epub 2008 May 7.
7
On a preference-based instrumental variable approach in reducing unmeasured confounding-by-indication.基于偏好的工具变量法在减少指示性未测量混杂因素方面的应用
Stat Med. 2015 Mar 30;34(7):1150-68. doi: 10.1002/sim.6404. Epub 2014 Dec 29.
8
Prior event rate ratio adjustment: numerical studies of a statistical method to address unrecognized confounding in observational studies.事前事件率比调整:一种解决观察性研究中未被识别混杂的统计方法的数值研究。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 May;21 Suppl 2:60-8. doi: 10.1002/pds.3235.
9
The sign of the unmeasured confounding bias under various standard populations.不同标准人群下未测量混杂偏倚的迹象。
Biom J. 2009 Aug;51(4):670-6. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200800195.
10
Simple efficient bias corrected instrumental variable estimator for randomized trials with noncompliance.随机试验中存在不依从时简单有效的有偏校正工具变量估计器。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Jul;33(4):786-93. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.03.013. Epub 2012 Mar 30.

引用本文的文献

1
ti-scMR: trajectory-inference-based dynamic single-cell Mendelian randomization identifies causal genes underlying phenotypic differences.ti-scMR:基于轨迹推断的动态单细胞孟德尔随机化识别表型差异背后的因果基因。
NAR Genom Bioinform. 2025 Jul 4;7(3):lqaf082. doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqaf082. eCollection 2025 Sep.
2
Causal Mediation Analysis: A Summary-Data Mendelian Randomization Approach.因果中介分析:一种汇总数据孟德尔随机化方法。
Stat Med. 2025 Feb 28;44(5):e10317. doi: 10.1002/sim.10317.
3
Causal Discovery with Generalized Linear Models through Peeling Algorithms.
通过剥离算法利用广义线性模型进行因果发现
J Mach Learn Res. 2024;25.
4
Multiplicative versus additive modelling of causal effects using instrumental variables for survival outcomes - a comparison.使用工具变量对生存结局进行因果效应的乘法建模与加法建模——一项比较
Stat Methods Med Res. 2025 Jan;34(1):3-25. doi: 10.1177/09622802241293765. Epub 2024 Dec 10.
5
Access to affordable daycare and women's mental health in Rajasthan, India: Evidence from a cluster-randomised social intervention.印度拉贾斯坦邦平价日托服务与女性心理健康:一项基于群组随机化社会干预的证据。
J Glob Health. 2024 Nov 8;14:04063. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04063.
6
Comparing the performance of two-stage residual inclusion methods when using physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable: unmeasured confounding and noncollapsibility.在将医生的处方偏好用作工具变量时比较两阶段残差纳入方法的性能:未测量的混杂因素和不可折叠性。
J Comp Eff Res. 2024 May;13(5):e230085. doi: 10.57264/cer-2023-0085. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
7
Unveiling challenges in Mendelian randomization for gene-environment interaction.揭示孟德尔随机化在基因-环境交互作用研究中的挑战。
Genet Epidemiol. 2024 Jun;48(4):164-189. doi: 10.1002/gepi.22552. Epub 2024 Feb 29.
8
A systematic review of simulation studies which compare existing statistical methods to account for non-compliance in randomised controlled trials.系统评价比较了随机对照试验中现有统计方法以解决不依从性问题的模拟研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Dec 16;23(1):300. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02126-w.
9
Instrumental variable analysis for cost outcome: Application to the effect of primary care visit on medical cost among low-income adults.工具变量分析在成本结果中的应用:在低收入成年人中,初级保健就诊对医疗费用的影响。
Stat Med. 2023 Oct 30;42(24):4349-4376. doi: 10.1002/sim.9865. Epub 2023 Aug 7.
10
Evaluation of instrumental variable method using Cox proportional hazard model in epidemiological studies.在流行病学研究中使用Cox比例风险模型评估工具变量法。
MethodsX. 2023 May 11;10:102211. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102211. eCollection 2023.