Jun-16H.S.1 Confounding and DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graphs) Hein Stigum.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Yvonne Kelly Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL
Advertisements

Causation seminar 20 November 2014 Paradoxes - solved
Presentation, data and programs at:
The Developing Person Through the Life Span Eighth Edition Appendix A Supplemental Charts, Graphs, and Tables Copyright © 2011 by Worth Publishers Kathleen.
Cross-sectional study. Definition in Dictionary of pharmaceutical medicine 2009 by G Nahler Dictionary of pharmaceutical medicine cross-sectional study.
Teenage Pregnancy 1 Teenage Pregnancy: Who suffers? 16 February 2011 Dr. Shantini Paranjothy, Clinical Senior Lecturer Public Health Medicine.
Chance, bias and confounding
Causal Diagrams: Directed Acyclic Graphs to Understand, Identify, and Control for Confounding Maya Petersen PH 250B: 11/03/04.
Copyright © 2013, 2009, and 2007, Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 3 Association: Contingency, Correlation, and Regression Section 3.4 Cautions in Analyzing.
Confounding And Interaction Dr. L. Jeyaseelan Department Of Biostatistics CMC, Vellore.
 Confounders are usually controlled with the “standard” response regression model.  The standard model includes confounders as covariates in the response.
Review: The Logic Underlying ANOVA The possible pair-wise comparisons: X 11 X 12. X 1n X 21 X 22. X 2n Sample 1Sample 2 means: X 31 X 32. X 3n Sample 3.
Hein Stigum courses E8 DAGs intro 2h, Answers Hein Stigum courses 17. apr. H.S.
Dr. Rufaidah Dabbagh Dr. Armen Torchyan MBBS, MPH MD, MPH CMED 304 Family and Community Medicine Department Family and Community Medicine Department.
Jul-15H.S.1 Short overview of statistical methods Hein Stigum Presentation, data and programs at: courses.
Jul-15H.S.1 Linear Regression Hein Stigum Presentation, data and programs at:
A Longitudinal Study of Maternal Smoking During Pregnancy and Child Height Author 1 Author 2 Author 3.
THREE CONCEPTS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS OF VARIABLES IN RESEARCH
HEAPHY 1 & 2 DIAGNOSTIC James HAYES Fri 30 th Aug 2013 Session 2 / Talk 4 11:33 – 12:00 ABSTRACT To estimate population attributable risks for modifiable.
Fetal Origins of Disease Hypothesis Grace M. Egeland, Ph.D. University of Bergen.
Causal Graphs, epi forum
The third factor Effect modification Confounding factor FETP India.
Confounding in epidemiology
Coffee Consumption and Risk of Myocardial Infarction among Older Swedish Women SA Rosner, A Akesson,MJ. Stampfer, A Wolk; AJE; :
Biostatistics Case Studies Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 5: Analysis Issues in Large Observational Studies.
The effect of smoking. Smoking Smoking is a practice in which a substance, most commonly tobacco or cannabis, is burned and the smoke is tasted.
Oct-15H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1Oct-151 H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1 Causal Graphs, epi forum Hein Stigum
Oct-15H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1Oct-15H.S.1 Directed Acyclic Graphs DAGs Hein Stigum
October 15H.S.1 Causal inference Hein Stigum Presentation, data and programs at:
Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade Multiple regression analysis Analysis of confounding and effectmodification Martin van de Esch, PhD.
Confounding. Objectives To define and discuss confounding To discuss methods of diagnosing confounding To define positive, negative and qualitative confounding.
Prospective Cohort Study of Thai Children SECONDHAND SMOKING IN PREGNANT WOMEN AND TIME OF THE FIRST TOOTH ERUPTION DIEN HOA ANH VU PhD Student – Faculty.
COMH7202: EPIDEMIOLOGY III – INTERMEDIATE CONCEPTS Confounding & Effect Modification
Introduction to confounding and DAGs
Mother and Child Health: Research Methods G.J.Ebrahim Editor Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, Oxford University Press.
Introduction More than 2 out of 3 adults and one third of children between 6 – 19 years of age are obese or overweight (1,2). Obese individuals accrued.
Design and Analysis of Clinical Study 2. Bias and Confounders Dr. Tuan V. Nguyen Garvan Institute of Medical Research Sydney, Australia.
Prospective Cohort Study of Thai Children SECONDHAND SMOKING IN PREGNANT WOMEN AND TIME OF THE FIRST TOOTH ERUPTION DIEN HOA ANH VU PhD Student – Faculty.
Should you get rid of the nightlight in your child’s room? Quinn et al Does the use of nightlights in children cause them to have myopia (nearsightedness)?
Selection Bias Concepts
Sample Actual vote Gallup Poll* *Based on a national survey conducted Oct in likely voters N = 2263 N = 125,040,818 Obama McCain Other 50% 46%
Should you get rid of the nightlight in your child’s room? Quinn et al Does the use of nightlights in children cause them to have myopia (nearsightedness)?
CHAPTER 7: Obesity in Women. Introduction 68% of U.S. population is overweight or obese. Resulting medical and psychosocial difficulties can be debilitating.
Confounding Biost/Stat 579 David Yanez Department of Biostatistics University of Washington July 7, 2005.
7.1 Seeking Correlation LEARNING GOAL
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. 7.1 Seeking Correlation LEARNING GOAL Be able to define correlation, recognize positive and negative correlations.
Figure 1. Illustrating confounders with a directed acyclic graph. A.A. Akinkugbe et al. J DENT RES 2016; Copyright © by International &
(www).
Using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) to assess confounding Glenys Webster & Anne Harris May 14, 2007 St Paul’s Hospital Statistical “Rounds”
Validity in epidemiological research Deepti Gurdasani.
7.1 Seeking Correlation LEARNING GOAL
Epidemiology 503 Confounding.
FIGURE 1. Low folate intake (E) may increase the risk of preterm delivery and infant low birth weight (C) (Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71(suppl):1295s–303s), and.
Validity Generalization
Lecture 3: Introduction to confounding (part 1)
DAGs intro with exercises 3h DirectedAcyclicGraph
Thoughts on the Future of Statistics Teaching in the light of Big Data
DAGs intro with exercises 6h
Presentation, data and programs at:
Hein Stigum courses DAGs intro, Answers Hein Stigum courses 28. nov. H.S.
Objective- To find the opposite of a sum or difference.
Objective- To find the opposite of a sum or difference.
Narrative Reviews Limitations: Subjectivity inherent:
Risk of major congenital malformations among study infants according to fetal exposure to antihypertensives during first trimester alone* Variable ACE.
Evaluating Effect Measure Modification
DAGs intro without exercises 1h Directed Acyclic Graph
Modeling the Causal Effects of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)
Mendelian Randomization (Using genes to tell us about the environment)
Causal diagram showing assumed associations between baseline smoking status, ESRD, and baseline characteristics in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection.
RR (with 95% CI) of total mortality (multivariate-adjusted) by duration of smoking cessation among diabetic women. RR (with 95% CI) of total mortality.
Presentation transcript:

Jun-16H.S.1 Confounding and DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graphs) Hein Stigum

Agenda Confounder Collider Jun-16H.S.2 Causal Knowledge as a Prerequisite for Confounding Evaluation… Hernán et al. AJE, 2002

CONFOUNDER DEFINITION Jun-16H.S.3

Associations E and D associated –E causes D –E and D have common cause –Both Overall E-D association = spurious effect from C + causal E-D effect Jun-16H.S.4 ED ED C ED C

CONFOUNDER EXAMPLES Adjusting is OK Jun-16H.S.5

Classic confounder C is the confounder RR ED is biased RR ED|C is unbiased RR ED =0.8 positive bias, towards the null Adjust for age: RR ED|C =0.5 is unbiased Jun-16H.S.6 ED C birth defects vitamins age  biased true

Mediated confounder U is the confounder C is a confounder mediator Effect on D is mediated RR ED is biased RR ED|C is unbiased RR ED =0.8 positive bias, towards the null Adjust for obesity: RR ED|C =0.5 is unbiased Jun-16H.S.7 ED C U vitaminbirth defects obesity age

Mediated confounder 2 U is the confounder C is a confounder mediator Effect on E is mediated RR ED is biased RR ED|C is unbiased RR ED =0.8 positive bias, towards the null Adjust for earlier malformations: RR ED|C =0.5 is unbiased Jun-16H.S.8 ED U C vitamin birth defects gene earlier malform

Marker for confounder U is the confounder C is a confounder marker RR ED is biased RR ED|C is less biased RR ED =0.3 negative bias, away from the null Adjust for enzyme: RR ED|C =0.5 is less biased Jun-16H.S ED C U folateneural tube enzyme gene 01  biased true

COLLIDER DEFINITION Jun-16H.S.10

Definition Confounder –Common cause for E and D Collider –Common effect of E and D Jun-16H.S.11 ED C ED C

Definition cont. Classic C is a collider, no confounding RR ED is unbiased RR ED|C is biased Example RR ED =1.0 cancer not diet related Positive collider=negative bias? Adjust for weight loss: RR ED|C =0.8 is biased Jun-16H.S.12 EDC diet cancerweight loss + +

COLLIDER EXAMPLES Adjusting is not OK Jun-16H.S.13

Classic collider C is a collider, There is no confounding RR ED is unbiased RR ED|C is biased RR ED =0.5 is unbiased Negative collider=positive bias? Adjust for low birth weight (LBW): RR ED|C =0.8 is biased Jun-16H.S.14 EDC folatepretermLBW - - +

Shared cause C is a collider of U and D C and E has a shared cause RR ED is unbiased RR UD|C is biased RR ED|C is biased RR ED =0.8 is unbiased Adjust for low birth weight (LBW): Positive bias, towards the null? RR ED|C =1.0 is biased Jun-16H.S.15 DC U E birth defects LBW Low age vitamin

Shared cause 2 C is a collider of U and E C and D has a shared cause RR ED is unbiased RR EU|C is biased RR ED|C is biased RR ED =0.8 is unbiased Adjust for maternal weight gain: Negative bias, away from the null? RR ED|C =0.5 is biased Jun-16H.S DC U E birth defects maternal weight gain gene vitamin

Folate-neural tube study Case Control study –Exposure:folate intake –Disease:neural tube defects –OR ED =0.65 Should we restrict analysis to live births? –OR ED|C =0.80 Jun-16H.S.17

Graph 1, collider RR ED =0.65 is unbiased Adjust for stillbirth: Positive bias, towards the null RR ED|C =0.8 is biased Jun-16H.S.18 folateneural tubestillbirth - - +

Graph 2, confounder marker RR ED =0.65 is biased Adjust for stillbirth: Positive bias, towards the null RR ED|C =0.8 is unbiased Opposite conclusion as graph 1 Jun-16H.S folateneural tube stillbirth stillbirths

SUMMING UP Jun-16H.S.20

Confounder versus Collider Confounder –Common cause for E and D –or some variant thereof –Adjust Collider –Common effect of E and D –or some variant thereof –Not adjust Jun-16H.S.21 ED C ED C

Collider Common effect of: E and D cause of E and D E and cause of D DCE DC U EDC U E

Reasons not to adjust for C C is a collider C is a weak confounder and –C has missing –C has errors –C is highly correlated with other cofactors Jun-16H.S.23

COLLIDER EXAMPLE The birth weight “paradox” uncovered, Hernández-Díaz at al. AJE, 2006 Jun-16H.S.24

Birth weight distribution Jun-16H.S.25

Infant mortality Jun-16H.S.26

To adjust or not adjust Crude –RR smoke =1.55 (1.50, 1.59) Adjusted for birth weight –RR smoke =1.09 (1.05, 1.12) Should we adjust for birth weight? Jun-16H.S.27

A likely DAG C is a collider of U and E C and D has a shared cause RR ED is unbiased RR EU|C is biased RR ED|C is biased U: malnutrition, malformation Jun-16H.S.28 CD U E LBWmort U smoke

DAG simplified RR ED is unbiased=1.0 RR EU|C is biased<1.0 RR ED|C is biased<1.0 Negative bias Same direction of bias Jun-16H.S.29 LBWmort U smoke biased true LBWmort U smoke

Summing up Confounding –“Yellow fingers”-”lung cancer” association is useful –not causal Collider –Among Low Birth Weight children “smokers” do better, less likely that the cause of LBW is malformation –“smoking” does not protect against mortality Jun-16H.S.30 yellow fingers lung cancer smoke LBWmort U smoke