The International Journal of Biostatistics Causal Effect Models for Realistic Individualized Treatment and Intention to Treat Rules

Marginal structural models (MSM) are an important class of models in causal inference. Given a longitudinal data structure observed on a sample of n independent and identically distributed experimental units, MSM model the counterfactual outcome distribution corresponding with a static treatment intervention, conditional on user-supplied baseline covariates. Identification of a static treatment regimen-specific outcome distribution based on observational data requires, beyond the standard sequential randomization assumption, the assumption that each experimental unit has positive probability of following the static treatment regimen. The latter assumption is called the experimental treatment assignment (ETA) assumption, and is parameter-specific. In many studies the ETA is violated because some of the static treatment interventions to be compared cannot be followed by all experimental units, due either to baseline characteristics or to the occurrence of certain events over time. For example, the development of adverse effects or contraindications can force a subject to stop an assigned treatment regimen.In this article we propose causal effect models for a user-supplied set of realistic individualized treatment rules. Realistic individualized treatment rules are defined as treatment rules which always map into the set of possible treatment options. Thus, causal effect models for realistic treatment rules do not rely on the ETA assumption and are fully identifiable from the data. Further, these models can be chosen to generalize marginal structural models for static treatment interventions. The estimating function methodology of Robins and Rotnitzky (1992) (analogue to its application in Murphy, et. al. (2001) for a single treatment rule) provides us with the corresponding locally efficient double robust inverse probability of treatment weighted estimator.In addition, we define causal effect models for “intention-to-treat” regimens. The proposed intention-to-treat interventions enforce a static intervention until the time point at which the next treatment does not belong to the set of possible treatment options, at which point the intervention is stopped. We provide locally efficient estimators of such intention-to-treat causal effects.

[1]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization , 1978 .

[2]  J. Robins.  A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect , 1986 .

[3]  J. Robins.  Addendum to “a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect” , 1987 .

[4]  T. Speed,et al.  On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9 , 1990 .

[5]  D. Rubin.  [On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9.] Comment: Neyman (1923) and Causal Inference in Experiments and Observational Studies , 1990 .

[6]  D. Rubin,et al.  Ignorability and Coarse Data , 1991 .

[7]  J. Robins,et al.  Recovery of Information and Adjustment for Dependent Censoring Using Surrogate Markers , 1992 .

[8]  J. Robins.  Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models , 1994 .

[9]  Niels Keiding,et al.  Coarsening at random in general sample spaces and random censoring in continuous time , 1995 .

[10]  James M. Robins,et al.  Coarsening at Random: Characterizations, Conjectures, Counter-Examples , 1997 .

[11]  James M. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models versus Structural nested Models as Tools for Causal inference , 2000 .

[12]  J M Robins,et al.  Marginal Mean Models for Dynamic Regimes , 2001, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[13]  C. Klaassen,et al.  Discussion to "Inference for semiparametric models: some questions and an answer" by Peter J. Bickel and Jaimyoung Kwon , 2001 .

[14]  Peter J. Bickel,et al.  INFERENCE FOR SEMIPARAMETRIC MODELS: SOME QUESTIONS AND AN ANSWER , 2001 .

[15]  M. J. Laan,et al.  Construction of Counterfactuals and the G-computation Formula , 2002 .

[16]  S. Murphy,et al.  Optimal dynamic treatment regimes , 2003 .

[17]  Locally Efficient Estimation of Nonparametric Causal Effects on Mean Outcomes in Longitudinal Studies , 2003 .

[18]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Unified Cross-Validation Methodology For Selection Among Estimators and a General Cross-Validated Adaptive Epsilon-Net Estimator: Finite Sample Oracle Inequalities and Examples , 2003 .

[19]  James M. Robins,et al.  Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality , 2003 .

[20]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  Deletion/Substitution/Addition Algorithm in Learning with Applications in Genomics , 2004, Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology.

[21]  J. Robins,et al.  Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting. , 2006, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[22]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  History-adjusted marginal structural models for estimating time-varying effect modification. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.