Date post: | 26-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | heather-montgomery |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
04/19/23 H.S. 104/19/23 H.S. 104/19/23 104/19/23 H.S. 104/19/23 H.S. 104/19/23 H.S. 1
Causal Graphs, epi forum
Hein Stigum
http://folk.uio.no/heins/
talks
04/19/23 H.S. 204/19/23 H.S. 204/19/23 204/19/23 H.S. 204/19/23 H.S. 204/19/23 H.S. 2
Agenda
• Motivating examples
• Concepts– Confounder, Collider
• Analyzing DAGs– Paths
• Examples– Confounding– Mixed (confounders and mediators)
– Selection bias
Why causal graphs?
• Problem– Association measures are biased
• Understanding– Confounding, selection bias, mediators
• Analysis– Adjust or not
• Discussion– Precise statement of prior assumptions
04/19/23 H.S. 3
04/19/23 H.S. 4
Motivating examples
• Statins and coronary heart disease– Disease risk: lifestyle, cholesterol
• Diabetes and fractures– Disease risk: fall, bone density
– Exposure risk: BMI, Physical activity
• Diabetes and fractures– Analyze among hospital patients
– Exclude hospital patients
Adjust or not?
Exclude or not?
04/19/23 H.S. 504/19/23 H.S. 5
ConceptsCausal versus casual
04/19/23 H.S. 504/19/23 504/19/23 H.S. 504/19/23 H.S. 5
04/19/23 H.S. 604/19/23 H.S. 604/19/23 604/19/23 H.S. 6
god-DAG
Evitamin
Dbirth defects
Cage
Uobesity
Read of the DAG:Causality = arrowsAssociations = paths
Node = variableArrow = cause, (at least one individual effect)
DAG=Directed Acyclic Graph
Questions on the DAG:E-D effect biased?Adjust for age?
04/19/23 H.S. 704/19/23 H.S. 704/19/23 7
Association and Cause
Lungcancer
Yellowfingers
Association Possible causal structure
Lungcancer
Yellowfingers
Cause
Lungcancer
Yellowfingers
Confounder
Smoke
Lungcancer
Yellowfingers
Collider
Hospital
H.S.
04/19/23 H.S. 804/19/23 H.S. 804/19/23 804/19/23 H.S. 804/19/23 H.S. 8
Confounder idea
• A confounder induces an association between its effects• Conditioning on a confounder removes the association• Condition = (restrict, stratify, adjust)
Yellow fingers
Smoking
Lung cancer
A common cause
+
++
Adjust for smoking
Yellow fingers
Smoking
Lung cancer
++
04/19/23 H.S. 904/19/23 H.S. 904/19/23 904/19/23 H.S. 904/19/23 H.S. 9
Collider idea
• Conditioning on a collider induces an association between its causes
• “And” and “or” selection leads to different bias
Yellow fingers
Hospital
Lung cancer
Two causes for coming to hospital
- or+ and
++
Yellow fingers
Hospital
Lung cancer
Select subjects in hospital
++
04/19/23 H.S. 10
Data driven analysis
E D
C
E D
C
E D
C
E D
C
Want the effect of E on D (E precedes D)
Observe the two associations E-C and D-CAssume criteria dictates adjusting for C (likelihood ratio, Akaike ( 赤池 弘次 ) or change in estimate)
The undirected graph above is compatible with three DAGs:
Confounder1. Adjust
Mediator2. Adjust (direct)
3. Not adjust (total)
Collider4. Not adjust
Conclusion: The data driven method is correct in 2 out of 4 situationsNeed information from outside the data to do a proper analysis
04/19/23 H.S. 12
Path definitions
04/19/23 H.S. 12
Path: any trail from E to D (without repeating or crossing itself)
Type: causal, non-causalState: open, closed
E D
C
M
K
Four paths:
Goal: Keep causal paths of interest openClose all non causal paths
Path1 ED2 EMD3 ECD4 ECD
04/19/23 H.S. 13
E D
C
M
K
causal
non-causal
E D
C
M
K
open
closed
E D
C
M
K
1. Causal path: ED (all arrows in the same direction) otherwise non-causal
Before conditioning:
2. Closed path: K (closed at a collider, otherwise open)
Conditioning on:
3. a non-collider closes: [M] or [C] 4. a collider opens: [K] (or a descendant of a collider)
Four rules
04/19/23 H.S. 1404/19/23 H.S. 14
Confounding
04/19/23 H.S. 1404/19/23 1404/19/23 H.S. 1404/19/23 H.S. 14
04/19/23 H.S. 1504/19/23 1504/19/23 H.S. 15
Physical activity and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)
EPhys. Act.
DCHD
C1age
Bias
Conditioning on C1 and C2 Path Type Status
1 ED Causal Open2 EC1]D Noncausal Closed3 EC2]D Noncausal Closed
No bias
Unconditional Path Type Status
1 ED Causal Open2 EC1D Noncausal Open3 EC2D Noncausal Open
C2sex
1. We want the total effect of Physical Activity on CHD. What should we adjust for?
04/19/23 H.S. 1604/19/23 H.S. 1604/19/23 1604/19/23 H.S. 16
Vitamin and birth defects
Evitamin
Dbirth defects
Cage
Uobesity
Bias in E-D? Adjust for C?
Bias
Conditioning on C Path Type Status
1 ED Causal Open2 EC]UD Non-causal Closed No bias
Unconditional Path Type Status
1 ED Causal Open2 ECUD Non-causal Open
This exampleand previous slide
are both confounding
04/19/23 H.S. 1704/19/23 H.S. 17
MixedConfounders and mediators
04/19/23 H.S. 1704/19/23 1704/19/23 H.S. 1704/19/23 H.S. 17
04/19/23 H.S. 18
Diabetes and Fractures
Ediabetes
Dfracture
Fprone to fall
Unconditional Path Type Status
1 E→D Causal Open2 E→F→D Causal Open3 E→B→D Causal Open4 E←V→B→D Non-causal Open5 E←P→B→D Non-causal Open
Pphysical activity
Bbone
density
VBMI
Conditional Path Type Status
1 E→D Causal Open2 E→F→D Causal Open3 E→B→D Causal Open4 E←[V]→B→D Non-causal Closed5 E←[P]→B→D Non-causal Closed
Mediators
Confounders
We want the total effect ofdiabetes on fractures
04/19/23 H.S. 19
Statin and CHD
1. We want the total effect of statin on CHD. What would we adjust for?
2. Can we estimate the direct effect of statin on CHD (not mediated through cholesterol)?E
statinD
CHD
Ccholesterol
Ulifestyle
UnconditionalPath Type Status
1 E D Causal Open2 E C D Causal Open3 E C U D Non-causal Closed
No adjustments gives the total effect
Conditioning on CPath Type Status
1 E D Causal Open2 E C] D Causal Closed3 E C] U D Non-causal Open
Adjusting for C opens the collider pathmust also adjust for Uto get the direct effect
Is C a collider?
04/19/23 H.S. 2004/19/23 H.S. 20
Selection bias
04/19/23 H.S. 2004/19/23 2004/19/23 H.S. 2004/19/23 H.S. 20
04/19/23 H.S. 21
Diabetes and Fractures
Ediabetes
Dfracture
Hhospital
Collider, selection bias
1. Convenience: Conduct the study among
hospital patients?
Unconditional Path Type Status
1 E→D Causal Open2 E→H←D Non-causal Closed
Conditional Path Type Status
1 E→D Causal Open2 E→[H]←D Non-Causal Open
Collider stratification bias: at least on stratum is biased
2. Homogeneous sample: Exclude hospital patients
04/19/23 H.S. 22
Selection bias: size and direction
1 0 sum
1 36 64 1000 164 736 900
1000RR= 2.0
DPopulation
E1 0 sum
1 22 13 350 49 74 123
157RR= 1.6
DHospital
E1 0 sum
1 15 51 650 115 663 777
843RR= 1.5
No hospitalD
E
1 0
1 0.6 0.20 0.3 0.1
Response= 16 %
D
E
2.0 3.0
2.0E D
HHospital risk:
Adjusting for selection bias
04/19/23 H.S. 23
Fprone to fall
Ediabetes
Dfracture
Hhospital
Path Type Status1 E→D Causal Open2 E→F→[H] ←D Non-causal Open Adjust for F to close this path
04/19/23 H.S. 2404/19/23 H.S. 24
Summing up
• Data driven analyses do not work. Need (causal) information from outside the data.
• DAGs are intuitive and accurate tools to display that information.
• Paths show the flow of causality and of bias and guide the analysis.
• DAGs clarify concepts like confounding and selection bias, and show that we can adjust for both.
04/19/23 H.S. 24
Better discussion based on DAGs
04/19/23 H.S. 2504/19/23 H.S. 2504/19/23 25
References1 Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3. ed. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Willams & Williams,2008.
2 Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology 2004; 15: 615-25.
3 Hernandez-Diaz S, Schisterman EF, Hernan MA. The birth weight "paradox" uncovered? Am J Epidemiol 2006; 164: 1115-20.
4 Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment Bias and Unnecessary Adjustment in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology 2009; 20: 488-95.
5 VanderWeele TJ, Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal directed acyclic graphs and the direction of unmeasured confounding bias. Epidemiology 2008; 19: 720-8.
6 VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Four types of effect modification - A classification based on directed acyclic graphs. Epidemiology 2007; 18: 561-8.
7 Weinberg CR. Can DAGs clarify effect modification? Epidemiology 2007; 18: 569-72.
• Hernan and Robins, Causal Inference (coming)
04/19/23 H.S. 25