The propensity score is the probability of treatment assignment conditional on observed baseline characteristics. The propensity score allows one to design and analyze an observational (nonrandomized) study so that it mimics some of the particular characteristics of a randomized controlled trial. In particular, the propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, the distribution of observed baseline covariates will be similar between treated and untreated subjects. I describe 4 different propensity score methods: matching on the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. I describe balance diagnostics for examining whether the propensity score model has been adequately specified. Furthermore, I discuss differences between regression-based methods and propensity score-based methods for the analysis of observational data. I describe different causal average treatment effects and their relationship with propensity score analyses.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786

An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies

http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/122776/1/gbd2016riskfactorscollaborators2017_3028.pdf

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

In observational studies with exposures or treatments that vary over time, standard approaches for adjustment of confounding are biased when there exist time-dependent confounders that are also affected by previous treatment. This paper introduces marginal structural models, a new class of causal models that allow for improved adjustment of confounding in those situations. The parameters of a marginal structural model can be consistently estimated using a new class of estimators, the inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted estimators.

/pdf/marginal-structural-models-and-causal-inference-in-4stwde17mg.pdf

Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology

When estimating causal effects using observational data, it is desirable to replicate a randomized experiment as closely as possible by obtaining treated and control groups with similar covariate distributions. This goal can often be achieved by choosing well-matched samples of the original treated and control groups, thereby reducing bias due to the covariates. Since the 1970's, work on matching methods has examined how to best choose treated and control subjects for comparison. Matching methods are gaining popularity in fields such as economics, epidemiology, medicine, and political science. However, until now the literature and related advice has been scattered across disciplines. Researchers who are interested in using matching methods-or developing methods related to matching-do not have a single place to turn to learn about past and current research. This paper provides a structure for thinking about matching methods and guidance on their use, coalescing the existing research (both old and new) and providing a summary of where the literature on matching methods is now and where it should be headed.

/pdf/matching-methods-for-causal-inference-a-review-and-a-look-1133erv7vp.pdf

Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward

BACKGROUND 

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence for risk factor exposure and the attributable burden of disease. By providing national and subnational assessments spanning the past 25 years, this study can inform debates on the importance of addressing risks in context.

 METHODS 

We used the comparative risk assessment framework developed for previous iterations of the Global Burden of Disease Study to estimate attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and trends in exposure by age group, sex, year, and geography for 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks from 1990 to 2015. This study included 388 risk-outcome pairs that met World Cancer Research Fund-defined criteria for convincing or probable evidence. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from randomised controlled trials, cohorts, pooled cohorts, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. We developed a metric that allows comparisons of exposure across risk factors-the summary exposure value. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk level, we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We decomposed trends in attributable burden into contributions from population growth, population age structure, risk exposure, and risk-deleted cause-specific DALY rates. We characterised risk exposure in relation to a Socio-demographic Index (SDI).

 FINDINGS 

Between 1990 and 2015, global exposure to unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, childhood underweight, childhood stunting, and smoking each decreased by more than 25%. Global exposure for several occupational risks, high body-mass index (BMI), and drug use increased by more than 25% over the same period. All risks jointly evaluated in 2015 accounted for 57·8% (95% CI 56·6-58·8) of global deaths and 41·2% (39·8-42·8) of DALYs. In 2015, the ten largest contributors to global DALYs among Level 3 risks were high systolic blood pressure (211·8 million [192·7 million to 231·1 million] global DALYs), smoking (148·6 million [134·2 million to 163·1 million]), high fasting plasma glucose (143·1 million [125·1 million to 163·5 million]), high BMI (120·1 million [83·8 million to 158·4 million]), childhood undernutrition (113·3 million [103·9 million to 123·4 million]), ambient particulate matter (103·1 million [90·8 million to 115·1 million]), high total cholesterol (88·7 million [74·6 million to 105·7 million]), household air pollution (85·6 million [66·7 million to 106·1 million]), alcohol use (85·0 million [77·2 million to 93·0 million]), and diets high in sodium (83·0 million [49·3 million to 127·5 million]). From 1990 to 2015, attributable DALYs declined for micronutrient deficiencies, childhood undernutrition, unsafe sanitation and water, and household air pollution; reductions in risk-deleted DALY rates rather than reductions in exposure drove these declines. Rising exposure contributed to notable increases in attributable DALYs from high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, occupational carcinogens, and drug use. Environmental risks and childhood undernutrition declined steadily with SDI; low physical activity, high BMI, and high fasting plasma glucose increased with SDI. In 119 countries, metabolic risks, such as high BMI and fasting plasma glucose, contributed the most attributable DALYs in 2015. Regionally, smoking still ranked among the leading five risk factors for attributable DALYs in 109 countries; childhood underweight and unsafe sex remained primary drivers of early death and disability in much of sub-Saharan Africa.

 INTERPRETATION 

Declines in some key environmental risks have contributed to declines in critical infectious diseases. Some risks appear to be invariant to SDI. Increasing risks, including high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and some occupational exposures, contribute to rising burden from some conditions, but also provide opportunities for intervention. Some highly preventable risks, such as smoking, remain major causes of attributable DALYs, even as exposure is declining. Public policy makers need to pay attention to the risks that are increasingly major contributors to global burden.

 FUNDING 

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Standard methods for survival analysis, such as the time-dependent Cox model, may produce biased effect estimates when there exist time-dependent confounders that are themselves affected by previous treatment or exposure. Marginal structural models are a new class of causal models the parameters of which are estimated through inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting; these models allow for appropriate adjustment for confounding. We describe the marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model and use it to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of human immunodeficiency virus-positive men participating in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. In this study, CD4 lymphocyte count is both a time-dependent confounder of the causal effect of zidovudine on survival and is affected by past zidovudine treatment. The crude mortality rate ratio (95% confidence interval) for zidovudine was 3.6 (3.0-4.3), which reflects the presence of confounding. After controlling for baseline CD4 count and other baseline covariates using standard methods, the mortality rate ratio decreased to 2.3 (1.9-2.8). Using a marginal structural Cox model to control further for time-dependent confounding due to CD4 count and other time-dependent covariates, the mortality rate ratio was 0.7 (95% conservative confidence interval = 0.6-1.0). We compare marginal structural models with previously proposed causal methods.

/pdf/marginal-structural-models-to-estimate-the-causal-effect-of-3cc39pfsue.pdf

Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men.

Even in the absence of unmeasured confounding factors or model misspecification, standard methods for estimating the causal effect of time-varying treatments on survival are biased when (a) there exists a time-dependent risk factor for survival that also predicts subsequent treatment, and (b) past treatment history predicts subsequent risk factor level. In contrast, methods based on marginal structural models (MSMs) can provide consistent estimates of causal effects when unmeasured confounding and model misspecification are absent. MSMs are a new class of causal models whose parameters are estimated using a new class of estimators—inverse-probability-of-treatment weighted estimators. We use a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the joint effect of zidovudine (AZT) and prophylaxis therapy for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia on the survival of HIV-positive men in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, an observational study of homosexual men. We obtained an estimated causal mortality r...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2670282.pdf

Marginal Structural Models to Estimate the Joint Causal Effect of Nonrandomized Treatments

We introduce a class of models for an additive decomposition of groups of curves stratified by crossed and nested factors, generalizing smoothing splines to such samples by associating them with a corresponding mixed-effects model. The models are also useful for imputation of missing data and exploratory analysis of variance. We prove that the best linear unbiased predictors (BLUPs) from the extended mixed-effects model correspond to solutions of a generalized penalized regression where smoothing parameters are directly related to variance components, and we show that these solutions are natural cubic splines. The model parameters are estimated using a highly efficient implementation of the EM algorithm for restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation based on a preliminary eigenvector decomposition. Variability of computed estimates can be assessed with asymptotic techniques or with a novel hierarchical bootstrap resampling scheme for nested mixed-effects models. Our methods are applied to me...

Smoothing spline models for the analysis of nested and crossed samples of curves

This paper provides a brief overview to four major types of causal models for health-sciences research: Graphical models (causal diagrams), potential-outcome (counterfactual) models, sufficient-component cause models, and structural-equations models. The paper focuses on the logical connections among the different types of models and on the different strengths of each approach. Graphical models can illustrate qualitative population assumptions and sources of bias not easily seen with other approaches; sufficient-component cause models can illustrate specific hypotheses about mechanisms of action; and potential-outcome and structural-equations models provide a basis for quantitative analysis of effects. The different approaches provide complementary perspectives, and can be employed together to improve causal interpretations of conventional statistical results.

/pdf/an-overview-of-relations-among-causal-modelling-methods-3jbv35gvs1.pdf

Babette Brumback

Papers

Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology

Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men.

Marginal Structural Models to Estimate the Joint Causal Effect of Nonrandomized Treatments

Smoothing spline models for the analysis of nested and crossed samples of curves

An overview of relations among causal modelling methods