Search

Assessing heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) is an essential task in epidemiology. The recent integration of machine learning into causal inference has provided a new, flexible tool for evaluating complex HTEs: causal forest. In a recent paper, Jawadekar et al (Am J Epidemiol. 2023;192(7):1155-1165) introduced this innovative approach and offered practical guidelines for applied users. Building on their work, this commentary provides additional insights and guidance to promote the understanding and application of causal forest in epidemiologic research. We start with conceptual clarifications, differentiating between honesty and cross-fitting, and exploring the interpretation of estimated conditional average treatment effects. We then delve into practical considerations not addressed by Jawadekar et al, including motivations for estimating HTEs, calibration approaches, and ways to leverage causal forest output with examples from simulated data. We conclude by outlining challenges to consider for future advancements and applications of causal forest in epidemiologic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present a practical approach for computing the sandwich variance estimator in 2-stage regression model settings. As a motivating example for 2-stage regression, we consider regression calibration, a popular approach for addressing covariate measurement error. The sandwich variance approach has rarely been applied in regression calibration, despite its requiring less computation time than popular resampling approaches for variance estimation, specifically the bootstrap. This is probably because it requires specialized statistical coding. Here we first outline the steps needed to compute the sandwich variance estimator. We then develop a convenient method of computation in R for sandwich variance estimation, which leverages standard regression model outputs and existing R functions and can be applied in the case of a simple random sample or complex survey design. We use a simulation study to compare the sandwich estimator to a resampling variance approach for both settings. Finally, we further compare these 2 variance estimation approaches in data examples from the Women's Health Initiative (1993–2005) and the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (2008–2011). In our simulations, the sandwich variance estimator typically had good numerical performance, but simple Wald bootstrap confidence intervals were unstable or overcovered in certain settings, particularly when there was high correlation between covariates or large measurement error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we advocate and expand upon a previously described monitoring strategy for efficient and robust estimation of disease prevalence and case numbers within closed and enumerated populations such as schools, workplaces, or retirement communities. The proposed design relies largely on voluntary testing, which is notoriously biased (e.g. in the case of coronavirus disease 2019) due to nonrepresentative sampling. The approach yields unbiased and comparatively precise estimates with no assumptions about factors underlying selection of individuals for voluntary testing, building on the strength of what can be a small random sampling component. This component enables the use of a recently proposed "anchor stream" estimator, a well-calibrated alternative to classical capture-recapture (CRC) estimators based on 2 data streams. We show that this estimator is equivalent to a direct standardization based on "capture," that is, selection (or not) by the voluntary testing program, made possible by means of a key parameter identified by design. This equivalency simultaneously allows for novel 2-stream CRC-like estimation of general mean values (e.g. means of continuous variables like antibody levels or biomarkers). For inference, we propose adaptations of Bayesian credible intervals when estimating case counts and bootstrapping when estimating means of continuous variables. We use simulations to demonstrate significant precision benefits relative to random sampling alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]