Article

Invited commentary: Simple models for a complicated reality

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
American Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.98). 09/2006; 164(4):312-4; discussion 315-6. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj238
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
37 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 'birthweight paradox' describes the phenomenon whereby birthweight-specific mortality curves cross when stratified on other exposures, most notably cigarette smoking. The paradox has been noted widely in the literature and numerous explanations and corrections have been suggested. Recently, causal diagrams have been used to illustrate the possibility for collider-stratification bias in models adjusting for birthweight. When two variables share a common effect, stratification on the variable representing that effect induces a statistical relation between otherwise independent factors. This bias has been proposed to explain the birthweight paradox. Causal diagrams may illustrate sources of bias, but are limited to describing qualitative effects. In this paper, we provide causal diagrams that illustrate the birthweight paradox and use a simulation study to quantify the collider-stratification bias under a range of circumstances. Considered circumstances include exposures with and without direct effects on neonatal mortality, as well as with and without indirect effects acting through birthweight on neonatal mortality. The results of these simulations illustrate that when the birthweight-mortality relation is subject to substantial uncontrolled confounding, the bias on estimates of effect adjusted for birthweight may be sufficient to yield opposite causal conclusions, i.e. a factor that poses increased risk appears protective. Effects on stratum-specific birthweight-mortality curves were considered to illustrate the connection between collider-stratification bias and the crossing of the curves. The simulations demonstrate the conditions necessary to give rise to empirical evidence of the paradox.
    Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 10/2009; 23(5):394-402. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01053.x · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Overadjustment is defined inconsistently. This term is meant to describe control (eg, by regression adjustment, stratification, or restriction) for a variable that either increases net bias or decreases precision without affecting bias. We define overadjustment bias as control for an intermediate variable (or a descending proxy for an intermediate variable) on a causal path from exposure to outcome. We define unnecessary adjustment as control for a variable that does not affect bias of the causal relation between exposure and outcome but may affect its precision. We use causal diagrams and an empirical example (the effect of maternal smoking on neonatal mortality) to illustrate and clarify the definition of overadjustment bias, and to distinguish overadjustment bias from unnecessary adjustment. Using simulations, we quantify the amount of bias associated with overadjustment. Moreover, we show that this bias is based on a different causal structure from confounding or selection biases. Overadjustment bias is not a finite sample bias, while inefficiencies due to control for unnecessary variables are a function of sample size.
    Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 08/2009; 20(4):488-95. DOI:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181a819a1 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • American Journal of Epidemiology 07/2006; 164(4):315-316. DOI:10.1093/aje/kwj239 · 4.98 Impact Factor