Suppose that we are interested in the average causal effect of a binary treatment on an outcome when this relationship is confounded by a binary confounder. Suppose that the confounder is unobserved but a nondifferential proxy of it is observed. We show that, under certain monotonicity assumption that is empirically verifiable, adjusting for the proxy produces a measure of the effect that is between the unadjusted and the true measures.

Biological and epidemiological phenomena are often measured with error or imperfectly captured in data. When the true state of this imperfect measure is a confounder of an outcome exposure relationship of interest, it was previously widely believed that adjustment for the mismeasured observed variables provides a less biased estimate of the true average causal effect than not adjusting. However, this is not always the case and depends on both the nature of the measurement and confounding. We describe two sets of (...) conditions under which adjusting for a non-deferentially mismeasured proxy comes closer to the unidentifiable true average causal effect than the unadjusted or crude estimate. The first set of conditions apply when the exposure is discrete or continuous and the confounder is ordinal, and the expectation of the outcome is monotonic in the confounder for both treatment levels contrasted. The second set of conditions apply when the exposure and the confounder are categorical. In all settings, the mismeasurement must be non-differential, as differential mismeasurement, particularly an unknown pattern, can cause unpredictable results. (shrink)

We present a method for assessing the sensitivity of the true causal effect to unmeasured confounding. The method requires the analyst to set two intuitive parameters. Otherwise, the method is assumption free. The method returns an interval that contains the true causal effect and whose bounds are arbitrarily sharp, i.e., practically attainable. We show experimentally that our bounds can be tighter than those obtained by the method of Ding and VanderWeele, which, moreover, requires to set one more parameter than our (...) method. Finally, we extend our method to bound the natural direct and indirect effects when there are measured mediators and unmeasured exposure–outcome confounding. (shrink)

An intervention may have an effect on units other than those to which it was administered. This phenomenon is called interference and it usually goes unmodeled. In this paper, we propose to combine Lauritzen-Wermuth-Frydenberg and Andersson-Madigan-Perlman chain graphs to create a new class of causal models that can represent both interference and non-interference relationships for Gaussian distributions. Specifically, we define the new class of models, introduce global and local and pairwise Markov properties for them, and prove their equivalence. We also (...) propose an algorithm for maximum likelihood parameter estimation for the new models, and report experimental results. Finally, we show how to compute the effects of interventions in the new models. (shrink)

It is well-known that dichotomization can cause bias and loss of efficiency in estimation. One can easily construct examples where adjusting for a dichotomized confounder causes bias in causal estimation. There are additional examples in the literature where adjusting for a dichotomized confounder can be more biased than not adjusting at all. The message is clear, do not dichotomize. What is unclear is if there are scenarios where adjusting for the dichotomized confounder always leads to lower bias than not adjusting. (...) We propose several sets of conditions that characterize scenarios where one should always adjust for the dichotomized confounder to reduce bias. We then highlight scenarios where the decision to adjust should be made more cautiously. To our knowledge, this is the first formal presentation of conditions that give information about when one should and potentially should not adjust for a dichotomized confounder. (shrink)