A different perspective of cross-world independence assumption and the utility of natural effects versus controlled effects

03/10/2020
by   Ian Shrier, et al.
0

The pure effects described by Robins and Greenland, and later called natural effects by Pearl, have been criticized because they require a cross-world independence assumption. In this paper, we use potential outcomes and sufficient causal sets to present a conceptual perspective of the cross-world independence assumption that explains why the clinical utility of natural effects is sometimes greater than that of controlled effects. Our perspective is consistent with recent work on mediation of natural effects, path specific effects and separable effects.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
03/23/2020

Insights into the "cross-world" independence assumption of causal mediation analysis

Causal mediation analysis is a useful tool for epidemiological research,...
research
08/12/2022

Mediation Analyses for the Effect of Antibodies in Vaccination

We partition the total ratio effect (one minus the vaccine effect) from ...
research
11/03/2020

Causal Shapley Values: Exploiting Causal Knowledge to Explain Individual Predictions of Complex Models

Shapley values underlie one of the most popular model-agnostic methods w...
research
03/08/2019

A Potential Outcomes Calculus for Identifying Conditional Path-Specific Effects

The do-calculus is a well-known deductive system for deriving connection...
research
06/21/2020

Clinically Relevant Mediation Analysis using Controlled Indirect Effect

Mediation analysis allows one to use observational data to estimate the ...
research
08/13/2020

An Interventionist Approach to Mediation Analysis

Judea Pearl's insight that, when errors are assumed independent, the Pur...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset