Causal Inference in Longitudinal Network-Dependent Data

Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)

Abstract

Much of the existing causal inference literature focuses on the effect of a single or multiple time-point intervention on an outcome based on observing longitudinal data on n independent units that are not causally connected. The causal effect is then defined as an expectation of the effect of the intervention assigned to the unit on their outcome, and causal effects of the intervention on other units on the unit’s outcome are assumed nonexistent. As a consequence, causal models only have to be concerned with causal relations between the components of the unit-specific data structure. Statistical inference is based on the assumption that the n data structures are n independent realizations of a random variable. However, in many CRTs or observational studies of few communities, the number of independent units is not large enough to allow statistical inference based on limit distributions.

References

  1. P.M. Aronow, C. Samii, Estimating average causal effects under interference between units. ArXiv e-prints, May (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. P.J. Bickel, C.A.J. Klaassen, Y. Ritov, J. Wellner, Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1997b)Google Scholar
  3. M.J. Campbell, A. Donner, N. Klar, Developments in cluster randomized trials and statistics in medicine. Stat. Med. 26, 2–19 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Chambaz, M.J. van der Laan, Targeting the optimal design in randomized clinical trials with binary outcomes and no covariate: theoretical study. Int. J. Biostat. 7(1), Article 10 (2011a)Google Scholar
  5. A. Chambaz, M.J. van der Laan, Targeting the optimal design in randomized clinical trials with binary outcomes and no covariate: simulation study. Int. J. Biostat. 7(1), Article 11 (2011b)Google Scholar
  6. N.A. Christakis, J.H. Fowler, The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(4), 370–379 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. N.A. Christakis, J.H. Fowler, Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat. Med. 32(4), 556–577 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. V. Didelez, A.P. Dawid, S. Geneletti, Direct and indirect effects of sequential treatments, in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006), pp. 138–146Google Scholar
  9. A. Donner, N. Klar, Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research (Arnold, London, 2000)Google Scholar
  10. R.D. Gill, J.M. Robins, Causal inference in complex longitudinal studies: continuous case. Ann. Stat. 29(6), 1785–1811 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. M.E. Halloran, C.J. Struchiner, Causal inference in infectious diseases. Epidemiology 6(2), 142–151 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. R.J. Hayes, L.H. Moulton, Cluster Randomised Trials. (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2009)Google Scholar
  13. F. Hu, W.F. Rosenberger, The Theory of Response Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials (Wiley, New York, 2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. M.G. Hudgens, M.E. Halloran, Toward causal inference with interference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103(482), 832–842 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. R. Lyons, The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analysis. Stat. Politics Policy 2(1) 1–26 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. E.L. Ogburn, O. Sofrygin, M.J. van der Laan, I. Diaz, Causal inference for social network data with contagion. ArXiv e-prints, October (2017)Google Scholar
  17. J. Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, New York, 2009a)Google Scholar
  18. D.B. Rubin, Matched Sampling for Causal Effects (Cambridge, Cambridge, MA, 2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. C.R. Shalizi, A.C. Thomas, Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol. Methods Res. 40(2), 211–239 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Sobel, What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate? J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101(476), 1398–1407 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. E.J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, T.J. VanderWeele. On causal inference in the presence of interference. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 21(1), 55–75 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. A.A. Tsiatis, Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2006)Google Scholar
  23. M.J. van der Laan, Estimation based on case-control designs with known prevalence probability. Int. J. Biostat. 4(1), Article 17 (2008a)Google Scholar
  24. M.J. van der Laan, Targeted maximum likelihood based causal inference: Part I. Int. J. Biostat. 6(2), Article 2 (2010a)Google Scholar
  25. M.J. van der Laan, Targeted maximum likelihood based causal inference: Part II. Int. J. Biostat. 6(2), Article 3 (2010b)Google Scholar
  26. M.J. van der Laan, Causal inference for networks. Technical Report, Division of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley (2012)Google Scholar
  27. M.J. van der Laan, Causal inference for a population of causally connected units. J. Causal Inference 2(1), 13–74 (2014a)Google Scholar
  28. M.J. van der Laan, J.M. Robins, Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. M.J. van der Laan, S. Rose, Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. M.J. van der Laan, D.B. Rubin, Targeted maximum likelihood learning. Int. J. Biostat. 2(1), Article 11 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. M.J. van der Laan, L.B. Balzer, M.L. Petersen, Adaptive matching in randomized trials and observational studies. J. Stat. Res. 46(2), 113–156 (2013a)Google Scholar
  32. A.W. van der Vaart, Asymptotic Statistics (Cambridge, New York, 1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. A.W. van der Vaart, J.A. Wellner, Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. T.J. VanderWeele, W. An, Social networks and causal inference, in Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 353–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. T.J. VanderWeele, J.P. Vandenbrouke, E.J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, J.M. Robins, A mapping between interactions and interference: implications for vaccine trials. Epidemiology 23(3), 285–292 (2012b)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiostatisticsUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biostatistics and Department of StatisticsUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations