Results 11  20
of
136
Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes
 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY, SERIES B (WITH
, 2002
"... ... this paper is to use experimental or observational data to estimate decision regimes that result in a maximal mean response. To explicate our objective and state assumptions, we use the potential outcomes model. The proposed method makes smooth, parametric assumptions only on quantities directly ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
... this paper is to use experimental or observational data to estimate decision regimes that result in a maximal mean response. To explicate our objective and state assumptions, we use the potential outcomes model. The proposed method makes smooth, parametric assumptions only on quantities directly relevant to the goal of estimating the optimal rules. We illustrate the proposed methodology via a small simulation.
Causal Inference for Complex Longitudinal Data: the continuous case
 Annals of Statistics
, 2001
"... this paper we consider two fundamental issues concerning Robins' theory. Firstly, do his assumed relations (between observed and unobservedfactual and counterfactualrandom variables) place restrictions on the distribution of the observed variables. If the answer is yes, adopting his approach m ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we consider two fundamental issues concerning Robins' theory. Firstly, do his assumed relations (between observed and unobservedfactual and counterfactualrandom variables) place restrictions on the distribution of the observed variables. If the answer is yes, adopting his approach means making restrictive implicit assumptionsnot very desirable. If however the answer is no, his approach is neutral. One can freely use it in modelling and estimation, exploring the consequences (for the unobserved variables) of the model. This follows the highly succesful tradition in all sciences of making thought experiments. In what philosophical sense counterfactuals actually exist seems to us less relevant. But it is important to know if a certain thought experiment is a priori ruled out by existing data
Optimal Structural Nested Models for Optimal Sequential Decisions
 In Proceedings of the Second Seattle Symposium on Biostatistics
, 2004
"... ABSTRACT: I describe two new methods for estimating the optimal treatment regime (equivalently, protocol, plan or strategy) from very high dimesional observational and experimental data: (i) gestimation of an optimal doubleregime structural nested mean model (drSNMM) and (ii) gestimation of a sta ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ABSTRACT: I describe two new methods for estimating the optimal treatment regime (equivalently, protocol, plan or strategy) from very high dimesional observational and experimental data: (i) gestimation of an optimal doubleregime structural nested mean model (drSNMM) and (ii) gestimation of a standard single regime SNMM combined with sequential dynamicprogramming (DP) regression. These methods are compared to certain regression methods found in the sequential decision and reinforcement learning literatures and to the regret modelling methods of Murphy (2003). I consider both Bayesian and frequentist inference. In particular, I propose a novel “Bayesfrequentist compromise ” that combines honest subjective non or semiparametric Bayesian inference with good frequentist behavior, even in cases where the model is so large and the likelihood function so complex that standard (uncompromised) Bayes procedures have poor frequentist performance. 1
Causal inference in statistics: An Overview
, 2009
"... This review presents empirical researcherswith recent advances in causal inference, and stresses the paradigmatic shifts that must be undertaken in moving from traditional statistical analysis to causal analysis of multivariate data. Special emphasis is placed on the assumptions that underly all ca ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This review presents empirical researcherswith recent advances in causal inference, and stresses the paradigmatic shifts that must be undertaken in moving from traditional statistical analysis to causal analysis of multivariate data. Special emphasis is placed on the assumptions that underly all causal inferences, the languages used in formulating those assumptions, the conditional nature of all causal and counterfactual claims, and the methods that have been developed for the assessment of such claims. These advances are illustrated using a general theory of causation based on the Structural Causal Model (SCM) described in Pearl (2000a), which subsumes and unifies other approaches to causation, and provides a coherent mathematical foundation for the analysis of causes and counterfactuals. In particular, the paper surveys the development of mathematical tools for inferring (from a combination of data and assumptions) answers to three types of causal queries: (1) queries about the effects of potential interventions, (also called “causal effects ” or “policy evaluation”) (2) queries about probabilities of counterfactuals, (including assessment of “regret, ” “attribution” or “causes of effects”) and (3) queries about direct and indirect effects (also known as “mediation”). Finally, the paper defines the formal and conceptual relationships between the structural and potentialoutcome frameworks and presents tools for a symbiotic analysis that uses the strong features of both.
On specifying graphical models for causation, and the identification problem
 Evaluation Review
, 2004
"... This paper (which is mainly expository) sets up graphical models for causation, having a bit less than the usual complement of hypothetical counterfactuals. Assuming the invariance of error distributions may be essential for causal inference, but the errors themselves need not be invariant. Graphs c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper (which is mainly expository) sets up graphical models for causation, having a bit less than the usual complement of hypothetical counterfactuals. Assuming the invariance of error distributions may be essential for causal inference, but the errors themselves need not be invariant. Graphs can be interpreted using conditional distributions, so that we can better address connections between the mathematical framework and causality in the world. The identification problem is posed in terms of conditionals. As will be seen, causal relationships cannot be inferred from a data set by running regressions unless there is substantial prior knowledge about the mechanisms that generated the data. There are few successful applications of graphical models, mainly because few causal pathways can be excluded on a priori grounds. The invariance conditions themselves remain to be assessed.
Identifying the consequences of dynamic treatment strategies
, 2005
"... We formulate the problem of learning and comparing the effects of dynamic treatment strategies in a probabilistic decisiontheoretic framework, and in particular show how Robins’s “Gcomputation ” formula arises naturally. Careful attention is paid to the mathematical and substantive conditions nece ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We formulate the problem of learning and comparing the effects of dynamic treatment strategies in a probabilistic decisiontheoretic framework, and in particular show how Robins’s “Gcomputation ” formula arises naturally. Careful attention is paid to the mathematical and substantive conditions necessary to justify use of this formula. Probabilistic influence diagrams are used to simplify manipulations. We compare our approach with formulations based on causal DAGs and on potential response models. Some key words and phrases: Causal inference; Gcomputation; Influence diagram; Observational study; Potential response; Sequential decision theory; Stability. 1
Probabilities of Causation: Bounds and Identification
 Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
, 2000
"... This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probability of causation, that is, the probability that one event was the real cause of another, in a given scenario. Starting from structuralsemantical definitions of the probabilities of necessary or sufficient causation (or both), we show h ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probability of causation, that is, the probability that one event was the real cause of another, in a given scenario. Starting from structuralsemantical definitions of the probabilities of necessary or sufficient causation (or both), we show how to bound these quantities from data obtained in experimental and observational studies, under general assumptions concerning the datagenerating process. In particular, we strengthen the results of Pearl (1999) by presenting sharp bounds based on combined experimental and nonexperimental data under no process assumptions, as well as under the mild assumptions of exogeneity (no confounding) and monotonicity (no prevention). These results delineate more precisely the basic assumptions that must be made before statistical measures such as the excessriskratio could be used for assessing attributional quantities such as the probability of causation. 1