• 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

从观测数据中探究因果关系:一个评估宗教信仰是否促进合作的例子。

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.

作者信息

Major-Smith Daniel

机构信息

Centre for Academic Child Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2BN, UK.

出版信息

Evol Hum Sci. 2023 Jun 27;5:e22. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2023.17. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.1017/ehs.2023.17
PMID:37587927
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10426067/
Abstract

Causal inference from observational data is notoriously difficult, and relies upon many unverifiable assumptions, including no confounding or selection bias. Here, we demonstrate how to apply a range of sensitivity analyses to examine whether a causal interpretation from observational data may be justified. These methods include: testing different confounding structures (as the assumed confounding model may be incorrect), exploring potential residual confounding and assessing the impact of selection bias due to missing data. We aim to answer the causal question 'Does religiosity promote cooperative behaviour?' as a motivating example of how these methods can be applied. We use data from the parental generation of a large-scale ( = approximately 14,000) prospective UK birth cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), which has detailed information on religiosity and potential confounding variables, while cooperation was measured via self-reported history of blood donation. In this study, there was no association between religious belief or affiliation and blood donation. Religious attendance was positively associated with blood donation, but could plausibly be explained by unmeasured confounding. In this population, evidence that religiosity causes blood donation is suggestive, but rather weak. These analyses illustrate how sensitivity analyses can aid causal inference from observational research.

摘要

从观察数据中进行因果推断极具难度,且依赖许多无法验证的假设,包括不存在混杂或选择偏倚。在此,我们展示如何应用一系列敏感性分析来检验基于观察数据的因果解释是否合理。这些方法包括:测试不同的混杂结构(因为假定的混杂模型可能不正确)、探究潜在的残余混杂以及评估因数据缺失导致的选择偏倚的影响。我们旨在回答因果问题“宗教信仰是否促进合作行为?”,以此作为如何应用这些方法的一个激励性示例。我们使用来自英国一个大规模(约14000人)前瞻性出生队列(埃文亲子纵向研究)亲代的数据,该队列拥有关于宗教信仰和潜在混杂变量的详细信息,而合作情况是通过自我报告的献血历史来衡量的。在这项研究中,宗教信仰或归属与献血之间没有关联。宗教活动参与度与献血呈正相关,但这可能合理地由未测量的混杂因素来解释。在这个群体中,宗教信仰导致献血的证据是有提示性的,但相当薄弱。这些分析说明了敏感性分析如何有助于从观察性研究中进行因果推断。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/dfb063496990/S2513843X23000178_fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/82abe2e948b9/S2513843X23000178_figAb.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/740a10bc5aa1/S2513843X23000178_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/e37b76f28e0c/S2513843X23000178_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/eb06209334b5/S2513843X23000178_fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/6dc7544194f0/S2513843X23000178_fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/dfb063496990/S2513843X23000178_fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/82abe2e948b9/S2513843X23000178_figAb.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/740a10bc5aa1/S2513843X23000178_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/e37b76f28e0c/S2513843X23000178_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/eb06209334b5/S2513843X23000178_fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/6dc7544194f0/S2513843X23000178_fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4de4/10426067/dfb063496990/S2513843X23000178_fig5.jpg

相似文献

1
Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.从观测数据中探究因果关系:一个评估宗教信仰是否促进合作的例子。
Evol Hum Sci. 2023 Jun 27;5:e22. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2023.17. eCollection 2023.
2
Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England: Results from the offspring generation.英格兰西南部一项前瞻性队列研究(阿冯纵向父母与儿童研究)中宗教/精神信仰及行为的人口统计学和社会经济预测因素:子代研究结果
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Jun 4;7:290. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.18517.2. eCollection 2022.
3
Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounding for binary outcomes using confounding functions.使用混杂函数评估二分类结局中未测量混杂的影响。
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 1;46(4):1303-1311. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx023.
4
Assessing causal treatment effect estimation when using large observational datasets.使用大型观测数据集评估因果治疗效果估计。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Nov 14;19(1):207. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0858-x.
5
Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounders for credible and reliable real-world evidence.评估未测量混杂因素对可信可靠真实世界证据的影响。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 Oct;29(10):1219-1227. doi: 10.1002/pds.5117. Epub 2020 Sep 14.
6
Joint mixed-effects models for causal inference with longitudinal data.具有纵向数据的因果推理的联合混合效应模型。
Stat Med. 2018 Feb 28;37(5):829-846. doi: 10.1002/sim.7567. Epub 2017 Dec 4.
7
Individual-level changes in religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviors over three decades in the parental generation of the ALSPAC cohort, UK.英国艾冯纵向父母与儿童发育研究(ALSPAC)队列中亲代三十年里宗教/精神信仰及行为的个体层面变化。
Religion Brain Behav. 2023 Oct 2;13(4):379-398. doi: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2156584. Epub 2023 Jan 6.
8
Maternal religiosity and adolescent mental health: A UK prospective cohort study.母亲的宗教信仰与青少年心理健康:一项英国前瞻性队列研究。
J Affect Disord. 2024 Apr 15;351:158-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.198. Epub 2024 Jan 26.
9
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
10
Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England: Results from the parental generation.英格兰西南部一项前瞻性队列研究(阿冯纵向父母与儿童研究)中宗教/精神信仰及行为的人口统计学和社会经济预测因素:来自父母一代的结果
Wellcome Open Res. 2023 Aug 22;7:159. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17897.2. eCollection 2022.

引用本文的文献

1
Releasing synthetic data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): Guidelines and applied examples.发布来自阿冯纵向父母与儿童研究(ALSPAC)的合成数据:指南及应用示例。
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Dec 24;9:57. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20530.2. eCollection 2024.
2
The associations between religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours and study participation in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England.宗教/精神信仰与行为和英格兰西南部一项前瞻性队列研究(ALSPAC)中研究参与情况之间的关联。
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Jun 27;7:186. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17975.2. eCollection 2022.
3

本文引用的文献

1
The associations between religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours and study participation in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England.宗教/精神信仰与行为和英格兰西南部一项前瞻性队列研究(ALSPAC)中研究参与情况之间的关联。
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Jun 27;7:186. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17975.2. eCollection 2022.
2
Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England: Results from the parental generation.英格兰西南部一项前瞻性队列研究(阿冯纵向父母与儿童研究)中宗教/精神信仰及行为的人口统计学和社会经济预测因素:来自父母一代的结果
Wellcome Open Res. 2023 Aug 22;7:159. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17897.2. eCollection 2022.
3
Material insecurity and religiosity: A causal analysis.
物质匮乏与宗教信仰:因果分析
Evol Hum Sci. 2024 Jan 17;6:e4. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2023.29. eCollection 2024.
4
Identifying culture as cause: Challenges and opportunities.将文化确定为病因:挑战与机遇。
Evol Hum Sci. 2024 Jan 4;6:e9. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2023.35. eCollection 2024.
5
The world has gone mad.这世界疯了。
Evol Hum Sci. 2023 Dec 11;6:e1. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2023.32. eCollection 2024.
6
Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England: Results from the parental generation.英格兰西南部一项前瞻性队列研究(阿冯纵向父母与儿童研究)中宗教/精神信仰及行为的人口统计学和社会经济预测因素:来自父母一代的结果
Wellcome Open Res. 2023 Aug 22;7:159. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17897.2. eCollection 2022.
Quantitative bias analysis in practice: review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding.实际中的定量偏倚分析:对存在未测量混杂的回归分析软件的综述。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 May 4;23(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01906-8.
4
Thinking About God Encourages Prosociality Toward Religious Outgroups: A Cross-Cultural Investigation.思考上帝会鼓励对宗教外群体的亲社会行为:一项跨文化研究。
Psychol Sci. 2023 Jun;34(6):657-669. doi: 10.1177/09567976231158576. Epub 2023 Apr 18.
5
Bias from questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 research: an example using ALSPAC.新冠疫情研究中问卷邀请与回复带来的偏倚:以阿冯纵向父母与儿童研究(ALSPAC)为例
Wellcome Open Res. 2022 Jul 8;6:184. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17041.2. eCollection 2021.
6
Toward a Clearer Definition of Selection Bias When Estimating Causal Effects.当估计因果效应时,对选择偏差有更清晰的定义。
Epidemiology. 2022 Sep 1;33(5):699-706. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001516. Epub 2022 Jun 6.
7
The Measurement Error Elephant in the Room: Challenges and Solutions to Measurement Error in Epidemiology.房间里的测量误差大象:流行病学中测量误差的挑战与解决方案。
Epidemiol Rev. 2022 Jan 14;43(1):94-105. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxab011.
8
Are Greenland, Ioannidis and Poole opposed to the Cornfield conditions? A defence of the E-value.格陵兰、约阿尼迪斯和普尔是否反对科菲尔德条件?对E值的辩护。
Int J Epidemiol. 2022 May 9;51(2):364-371. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyab218.
9
'Look not at what is contrary to propriety': A meta-analytic exploration of the association between religiosity and sensitivity to disgust.“非礼勿视”:宗教信仰与厌恶感敏感性关系的元分析探索。
Br J Soc Psychol. 2022 Jan;61(1):276-299. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12479. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
10
Framework for the treatment and reporting of missing data in observational studies: The Treatment And Reporting of Missing data in Observational Studies framework.观察性研究中缺失数据的处理和报告框架:观察性研究中缺失数据的处理和报告框架。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jun;134:79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.008. Epub 2021 Feb 2.