Search

Background: Advanced methods for causal inference, such as targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), require certain conditions for statistical inference. However, in situations where there is not differentiability due to data sparsity or near-positivity violations, the Donsker class condition is violated. In such situations, TMLE variance can suffer from inflation of the type I error and poor coverage, leading to conservative confidence intervals. Cross-validation of the TMLE algorithm (CVTMLE) has been suggested to improve on performance compared to TMLE in settings of positivity or Donsker class violations. We aim to investigate the performance of CVTMLE compared to TMLE in various settings. Methods: We utilised the data-generating mechanism as described in Leger et al. (2022) to run a Monte Carlo experiment under different Donsker class violations. Then, we evaluated the respective statistical performances of TMLE and CVTMLE with different super learner libraries, with and without regression tree methods. Results: We found that CVTMLE vastly improves confidence interval coverage without adversely affecting bias, particularly in settings with small sample sizes and near-positivity violations. Furthermore, incorporating regression trees using standard TMLE with ensemble super learner-based initial estimates increases bias and variance leading to invalid statistical inference. Conclusions: It has been shown that when using CVTMLE the Donsker class condition is no longer necessary to obtain valid statistical inference when using regression trees and under either data sparsity or near-positivity violations. We show through simulations that CVTMLE is much less sensitive to the choice of the super learner library and thereby provides better estimation and inference in cases where the super learner library uses more flexible candidates and is prone to overfitting., Comment: 20 pages, 3 figures, 1 table

The Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) statistical data analysis framework integrates machine learning, statistical theory, and statistical inference to provide a least biased, efficient and robust strategy for estimation and inference of a variety of statistical and causal parameters. We describe and evaluate the epidemiological applications that have benefited from recent methodological developments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed for articles that applied any form of TMLE in observational studies. We summarised the epidemiological discipline, geographical location, expertise of the authors, and TMLE methods over time. We used the Roadmap of Targeted Learning and Causal Inference to extract key methodological aspects of the publications. We showcase the contributions to the literature of these TMLE results. Of the 81 publications included, 25% originated from the University of California at Berkeley, where the framework was first developed by Professor Mark van der Laan. By the first half of 2022, 70% of the publications originated from outside the United States and explored up to 7 different epidemiological disciplines in 2021-22. Double-robustness, bias reduction and model misspecification were the main motivations that drew researchers towards the TMLE framework. Through time, a wide variety of methodological, tutorial and software-specific articles were cited, owing to the constant growth of methodological developments around TMLE. There is a clear dissemination trend of the TMLE framework to various epidemiological disciplines and to increasing numbers of geographical areas. The availability of R packages, publication of tutorial papers, and involvement of methodological experts in applied publications have contributed to an exponential increase in the number of studies that understood the benefits, and adoption, of TMLE., Comment: 42 pages, 2 figures, 2 tables

Approximate statistical inference via determination of the asymptotic distribution of a statistic is routinely used for inference in applied medical statistics (e.g. to estimate the standard error of the marginal or conditional risk ratio). One method for variance estimation is the classical Delta-method but there is a knowledge gap as this method is not routinely included in training for applied medical statistics and its uses are not widely understood. Given that a smooth function of an asymptotically normal estimator is also asymptotically normally distributed, the Delta-method allows approximating the large-sample variance of a function of an estimator with known large-sample properties. In a more general setting, it is a technique for approximating the variance of a functional (i.e., an estimand) that takes a function as an input and applies another function to it (e.g. the expectation function). Specifically, we may approximate the variance of the function using the functional Delta-method based on the influence function (IF). The IF explores how a functional $\phi(\theta)$ changes in response to small perturbations in the sample distribution of the estimator and allows computing the empirical standard error of the distribution of the functional. The ongoing development of new methods and techniques may pose a challenge for applied statisticians who are interested in mastering the application of these methods. In this tutorial, we review the use of the classical and functional Delta-method and their links to the IF from a practical perspective. We illustrate the methods using a cancer epidemiology example and we provide reproducible and commented code in R and Python using symbolic programming. The code can be accessed at https://github.com/migariane/DeltaMethodInfluenceFunction

The purpose of many health studies is to estimate the effect of an exposure on an outcome. It is not always ethical to assign an exposure to individuals in randomised controlled trials, instead observational data and appropriate study design must be used. There are major challenges with observational studies, one of which is confounding that can lead to biased estimates of the causal effects. Controlling for confounding is commonly performed by simple adjustment for measured confounders; although, often this is not enough. Recent advances in the field of causal inference have dealt with confounding by building on classical standardisation methods. However, these recent advances have progressed quickly with a relative paucity of computational-oriented applied tutorials contributing to some confusion in the use of these methods among applied researchers. In this tutorial, we show the computational implementation of different causal inference estimators from a historical perspective where different estimators were developed to overcome the limitations of the previous one. Furthermore, we also briefly introduce the potential outcomes framework, illustrate the use of different methods using an illustration from the health care setting, and most importantly, we provide reproducible and commented code in Stata, R and Python for researchers to apply in their own observational study. The code can be accessed at https://github.com/migariane/TutorialCausalInferenceEstimators

Classical epidemiology has focused on the control of confounding but it is only recently that epidemiologists have started to focus on the bias produced by colliders. A collider for a certain pair of variables (e.g., an outcome Y and an exposure A) is a third variable (C) that is caused by both. In a directed acyclic graph (DAG), a collider is the variable in the middle of an inverted fork (i.e., the variable C in A -> C <- Y). Controlling for, or conditioning an analysis on a collider (i.e., through stratification or regression) can introduce a spurious association between its causes. This potentially explains many paradoxical findings in the medical literature, where established risk factors for a particular outcome appear protective. We use an example from non-communicable disease epidemiology to contextualize and explain the effect of conditioning on a collider. We generate a dataset with 1,000 observations and run Monte-Carlo simulations to estimate the effect of 24-hour dietary sodium intake on systolic blood pressure, controlling for age, which acts as a confounder, and 24-hour urinary protein excretion, which acts as a collider. We illustrate how adding a collider to a regression model introduces bias. Thus, to prevent paradoxical associations, epidemiologists estimating causal effects should be wary of conditioning on colliders. We provide R-code in easy-to-read boxes throughout the manuscript and a GitHub repository (https://github.com/migariane/ColliderApp) for the reader to reproduce our example. We also provide an educational web application allowing real-time interaction to visualize the paradoxical effect of conditioning on a collider http://watzilei.com/shiny/collider/.

Longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation (LTMLE) has very rarely been used to estimate dynamic treatment effects in the context of time-dependent confounding affected by prior treatment when faced with long follow-up times, multiple time-varying confounders, and complex associational relationships simultaneously. Reasons for this include the potential computational burden, technical challenges, restricted modeling options for long follow-up times, and limited practical guidance in the literature. However, LTMLE has desirable asymptotic properties, i.e. it is doubly robust, and can yield valid inference when used in conjunction with machine learning. We use a topical and sophisticated question from HIV treatment research to show that LTMLE can be used successfully in complex realistic settings and compare results to competing estimators. Our example illustrates the following practical challenges common to many epidemiological studies 1) long follow-up time (30 months), 2) gradually declining sample size 3) limited support for some intervention rules of interest 4) a high-dimensional set of potential adjustment variables, increasing both the need and the challenge of integrating appropriate machine learning methods 5) consideration of collider bias. Our analyses, as well as simulations, shed new light on the application of LTMLE in complex and realistic settings: we show that (i) LTMLE can yield stable and good estimates, even when confronted with small samples and limited modeling options; (ii) machine learning utilized with a small set of simple learners (if more complex ones can't be fitted) can outperform a single, complex model, which is tailored to incorporate prior clinical knowledge; (iii) performance can vary considerably depending on interventions and their support in the data, and therefore critical quality checks should accompany every LTMLE analysis.