Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

False Discovery Rate Control for Confounder Selection Using Mirror Statistics

Published 29 Feb 2024 in stat.ME | (2402.18904v3)

Abstract: While data-driven confounder selection requires careful consideration, it is frequently employed in observational studies. Widely recognized criteria for confounder selection include the minimal-set approach, which involves selecting variables relevant to both treatment and outcome, and the union-set approach, which involves selecting variables associated with either treatment or outcome. These approaches are often implemented using heuristics and off-the-shelf statistical methods, where the degree of uncertainty may not be clear. In this paper, we focus on the false discovery rate (FDR) to measure uncertainty in confounder selection. We define the FDR specific to confounder selection and propose methods based on the mirror statistic, a recently developed approach for FDR control that does not rely on p-values. The proposed methods are p-value-free and require only the assumption of some symmetry in the distribution of the mirror statistic. It can be combined with sparse estimation and other methods that involve difficulties in deriving p-values. The properties of the proposed methods are investigated through exhaustive numerical experiments. Particularly in high-dimensional data scenarios, the proposed methods effectively control FDR and perform better than the p-value-based methods.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (47)
  1. American Heart Association. Cardiac catheterization. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/heart-attack/diagnosing-a-heart-attack/cardiac-catheterization, 2023. Accessed: 2024-02-08.
  2. CONTROLLING THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE VIA KNOCKOFFS. Ann. Stat., 43(5):2055–2085, 2015.
  3. Yoav Benjamini. Discovering the false discovery rate. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 72(4):405–416, August 2010.
  4. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 57(1):289–300, 1995.
  5. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. aos, 29(4):1165–1188, August 2001.
  6. Multiple Comparisons Using R. Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.
  7. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am. J. Epidemiol., 163(12):1149–1156, June 2006.
  8. Panning for gold: Model-free knockoffs for high-dimensional controlled variable selection. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 80(3), October 2016.
  9. The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically III patients. JAMA, 276(11):889–897, September 1996.
  10. False discovery rate control via data splitting. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., pages 1–18, March 2022.
  11. A Scale-Free approach for false discovery rate control in generalized linear models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., pages 1–15, January 2023.
  12. Covariate selection for the nonparametric estimation of an average treatment effect. Biometrika, 98(4):861–875, 2011.
  13. R Dennis Cook. Testing predictor contributions in sufficient dimension reduction. aos, 32(3):1062–1092, June 2004.
  14. Variable selection in causal inference using a simultaneous penalization method. Journal of Causal Inference, 6(1), March 2018.
  15. Sander Greenland. Invited commentary: Variable selection versus shrinkage in the control of multiple confounders. Am. J. Epidemiol., 167(5):523–529, January 2008.
  16. Statistical foundations for model-based adjustments. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 36:89–108, March 2015.
  17. Outcome modelling strategies in epidemiology: traditional methods and basic alternatives. Int. J. Epidemiol., 45(2):565–575, April 2016.
  18. Paul W Holland. Statistics and causal inference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 81(396):945–960, December 1986.
  19. Relaxing the assumptions of knockoffs by conditioning. aos, 48(5):3021–3042, October 2020.
  20. The APACHE III prognostic system. risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest, 100(6):1619–1636, December 1991.
  21. Covariate selection with group lasso and doubly robust estimation of causal effects. Biometrics, 74(1):8–17, March 2018.
  22. CoxKnockoff: Controlled feature selection for the cox model using knockoffs. August 2023.
  23. DeepPINK: reproducible feature selection in deep neural networks, September 2018.
  24. What is cardiac catheterization. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/cardiac-catheterization, 2022. Accessed: 2024-02-08.
  25. The implications of propensity score variable selection strategies in pharmacoepidemiology: an empirical illustration. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf., 20(6):551–559, June 2011.
  26. Judea Pearl. Causal inference in statistics: An overview. ssu, 3(none):96–146, January 2009a.
  27. Judea Pearl. Causality. Cambridge University Press, September 2009b.
  28. Elements of Causal Inference. The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2021.
  29. Feature screening with kernel knockoffs. In Gustau Camps-Valls, Francisco J R Ruiz, and Isabel Valera, editors, Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 151 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1935–1974. PMLR, 2022.
  30. J M Robins and S Greenland. The role of model selection in causal inference from nonexperimental data. Am. J. Epidemiol., 123(3):392–402, March 1986.
  31. Model selection for estimating treatment effects. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 76(4):749–769, November 2013.
  32. Donald B Rubin. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol., 66(5):688–701, October 1974.
  33. Donald B Rubin. Causal inference using potential outcomes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 100(469):322–331, March 2005.
  34. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology, 20(4):488–495, July 2009.
  35. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology, 20(4):512–522, July 2009.
  36. Outcome-adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference. Biometrics, 73(4):1111–1122, December 2017.
  37. Recent methodological trends in epidemiology: No need for Data-Driven variable selection? Am. J. Epidemiol., 193(2):370–376, February 2024.
  38. The bayesian causal effect estimation algorithm. J. Causal Inference, 3(2):207–236, September 2015.
  39. Robert Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 58(1):267–288, January 1996.
  40. On asymptotically optimal confidence regions and tests for high-dimensional models. aos, 42(3):1166–1202, June 2014.
  41. Tyler J VanderWeele. Principles of confounder selection. Eur. J. Epidemiol., 34(3):211–219, March 2019.
  42. A new criterion for confounder selection. Biometrics, 67(4):1406–1413, December 2011.
  43. On model selection and model misspecification in causal inference. Stat. Methods Med. Res., 21(1):7–30, February 2012.
  44. Bayesian effect estimation accounting for adjustment uncertainty. Biometrics, 68(3):661–671, 2012.
  45. Confounder selection via penalized credible regions. Biometrics, 70(4):852–861, December 2014.
  46. Covariate selection strategies for causal inference: Classification and comparison. Biom. J., 61(5):1270–1289, September 2019.
  47. Controlling false discovery rate using gaussian mirrors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 118(541):222–241, January 2023.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.