Abstract
In causal inference, sensitivity models assess how unmeasured confounders could alter causal analyses, but the sensitivity parameter -- which quantifies the degree of unmeasured confounding -- is often difficult to interpret. For this reason, researchers sometimes compare the sensitivity parameter to an estimate of measured confounding. This is known as calibration, or benchmarking. However, calibrated estimates are not always interpreted correctly, and uncertainty in the estimate of measured confounding is rarely accounted for. To address these limitations, we propose calibrated sensitivity models, which directly bound the degree of unmeasured confounding by a multiple of measured confounding. We develop a clear framework for interpreting calibrated sensitivity models and derive statistical methods for accounting for uncertainty due to estimating measured confounding. Incorporating this uncertainty shows causal analyses may be either less or more robust to unmeasured confounding than suggested by standard approaches. We develop efficient estimators and inferential methods for bounds on the average treatment effect with three calibrated sensitivity models, establishing parametric efficiency and asymptotic normality under doubly robust style nonparametric conditions. We illustrate our methods with an analysis of the effect of mothers' smoking on infant birthweight.
本页仅发布可检索的书目信息与作者摘要。HTML 正文、PDF 和 LaTeX 源文件是独立阅读资源，不作为搜索引擎落地内容。打开页面后会按浏览器语言自动翻译标题与摘要，并写入缓存。