Reducing Bias Amplification in the Presence of Unmeasured Confounding through Out-of-Sample Estimation Strategies for the Disease Risk Score

Abstract The prognostic score, or disease risk score (DRS), is a summary score that is used to control for confounding in non-experimental studies. While the DRS has been shown to effectively control for measured confounders, unmeasured confounding continues to be a fundamental obstacle in non-experimental research. Both theory and simulations have shown that in the presence of unmeasured confounding, controlling for variables that affect treatment (both instrumental variables and measured confounders) amplifies the bias caused by unmeasured confounders. In this paper, we use causal diagrams and path analysis to review and illustrate the process of bias amplification. We show that traditional estimation strategies for the DRS do not avoid bias amplification when controlling for predictors of treatment. We then discuss estimation strategies for the DRS that can potentially reduce bias amplification that is caused by controlling both instrumental variables and measured confounders. We show that under certain assumptions, estimating the DRS in populations outside the defined study cohort where treatment has not been introduced, or in outside populations with reduced treatment prevalence, can control for the confounding effects of measured confounders while at the same time reduce bias amplification.

[1]  J. Wooldridge Should Instrumental Variables be Used as Matching Variables , 2016 .

[2]  Elizabeth A Stuart,et al.  On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Linear Models: A Useful “Microscope” for Causal Analysis , 2013 .

[4]  J. Gagne,et al.  Disease Risk Score (DRS) as a Confounder Summary Method: Systematic Review and Recommendations , 2013 .

[5]  T. Richardson Single World Intervention Graphs ( SWIGs ) : A Unification of the Counterfactual and Graphical Approaches to Causality , 2013 .

[6]  Mark Lunt,et al.  Propensity score calibration in the absence of surrogacy. , 2012, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al.  Role of disease risk scores in comparative effectiveness research with emerging therapies , 2012, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[8]  J. Myers,et al.  Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. , 2011, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  J. Pearl Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. , 2011, American journal of epidemiology.

[10]  W. Ray,et al.  Performance of disease risk scores, propensity scores, and traditional multivariable outcome regression in the presence of multiple confounders. , 2011, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  Judea Pearl,et al.  On a Class of Bias-Amplifying Variables that Endanger Effect Estimates , 2010, UAI.

[12]  J. Rassen,et al.  Confounding Control in Healthcare Database Research: Challenges and Potential Approaches , 2010, Medical care.

[13]  Til Stürmer,et al.  Confounder summary scores when comparing the effects of multiple drug exposures , 2010, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[14]  W. Ray,et al.  Use of disease risk scores in pharmacoepidemiologic studies , 2009, Statistical methods in medical research.

[15]  B. Hansen The prognostic analogue of the propensity score , 2008 .

[16]  Jay Bhattacharya,et al.  Do Instrumental Variables Belong in Propensity Scores? , 2007 .

[17]  J. Avorn,et al.  Variable selection for propensity score models. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[18]  M Alan Brookhart,et al.  Evaluating Short-Term Drug Effects Using a Physician-Specific Prescribing Preference as an Instrumental Variable , 2006, Epidemiology.

[19]  Til Stürmer,et al.  A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  W. Ray,et al.  Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[21]  J. Allison,et al.  The effects of physician specialty and patient comorbidities on the use and discontinuation of coxibs. , 2003, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[22]  R Day,et al.  Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  R. Makuch,et al.  Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: A randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. , 2000, JAMA.

[24]  Lise,et al.  Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[26]  R J Little,et al.  Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. , 2000, Annual review of public health.

[27]  P. Games Correlation and Causation: A Logical Snafu , 1990 .

[28]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[29]  O S Miettinen,et al.  Stratification by a multivariate confounder score. , 1976, American journal of epidemiology.

[30]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .