Abstract
We describe how ordinary interpretations of causal models and causal graphs fail to capture important distinctions among ignorable allocation mechanisms for subject selection or allocation. We illustrate these limitations in the case of random confounding and designs that prevent such confounding. In many experimental designs individual treatment allocations are dependent, and explicit population models are needed to show this dependency. In particular, certain designs impose unfaithful covariate-treatment distributions to prevent random confounding, yet ordinary causal graphs cannot discriminate between these unconfounded designs and confounded studies. Causal models for populations are better suited for displaying these phenomena than are individual-level models, because they allow representation of allocation dependencies as well as outcome dependencies across individuals. Nonetheless, even with this extension, ordinary graphical models still fail to capture distinctions between hypothetical superpopulations (sampling distributions) and observed populations (actual distributions), although potential-outcome models can be adapted to show these distinctions and their consequences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash T, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 183–209.
Pearl J. Causality. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal inference. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2015.
Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15:413–9.
Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci. 1999;14:29–46.
Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability and confounding revisited. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2009;6:4.
Rothman KJ. Epidemiologic methods in clinical trials. Cancer. 1977;39:1771–5.
Greenland S, Neutra RR. Control of confounding in the assessment of medical technology. Int J Epidemiol. 1980;9:361–7.
Matthews JNS. An introduction to randomised controlled clinical trials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2006.
Robins JM. Confidence intervals for causal parameters. Stat Med. 1988;7:773–85.
Rosenbaum PR. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:387–94.
Senn SJ. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1994;13:1715–26.
Robins JM, Scheines R, Spirtes P, Wasserman L. Uniform consistency in causal inference. Biometrika. 2003;90:491–515.
Spirtes P, Glymour C, Scheines R. Causation, prediction, and search. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2001.
Mansournia MA, Hernán MA, Greenland S. Matched designs and causal diagrams. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:860–9.
Mansournia MA, Greenland S. The relation of collapsibility and confounding to faithfulness and stability. Epidemiology. 2015;26: in press.
Cox DR, Hinkley DV. Theoretical statistics. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1974.
Greenland S. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology. 1990;1:421–9.
Greenland S. On the logical justification of conditional tests for two-by-two contingency tables. Am Stat. 1991;45:248–51.
Rosenbaum PR. Observational studies. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
Richardson TS, Robins JM. Single world intervention graphs: a primer. Second UAI Workshop on Causal Structure Learning, Bellevue, Washington, 2013.
Robins JM, Richardson TS. Alternative graphical causal models and the identification of direct effects. In: Shrout P, Keyes K, Ornstein K, editors. Causality and psychopathology: finding the determinants of disorders and their cures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 1–52.
Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10:37–48.
Greenland S, Pearl J. Causal diagrams. In: Boslaugh S, editor. Encyclopedia of epidemiology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2008. p. 149–56.
Pearl J. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika. 1995;82:669–710.
Rubin DB. Practical implications of modes of statistical inference for causal effects and the critical role of the assignment mechanism. Biometrics. 1991;47:1213–34.
Rosenbaum P, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.
Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal. 2007;15:199–236.
Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25:1–21.
Waernbaum I. Model misspecification and robustness in causal inference: comparing matching with doubly robust estimation. Stat Med. 2012;31:1572–81.
Imai K, Ratkovic M. Covariate balancing propensity score. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2014;76:243–63.
Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, Robins JM. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:262–70.
Fisher RA. The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1935.
Robins JM, Morgenstern H. The foundations of confounding in epidemiology. Comp Math Appl. 1987;14:869–916.
Senn S. Seven myths of randomisation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2013;32:1439–50.
Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice. New York: Wiley; 2002.
Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL. Fundamentals of clinical trials. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and analysis of clinical trials. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.
Lauritzen SL, Dawid AP, Larsen BN, Leimar HG. Independence properties of directed Markov fields. Networks. 1990;20:491–505.
Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11:550–60.
Sato T, Matsuyama Y. Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology. 2003;14:680–6.
Kang JD, Schafer JL. Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data (with discussion). Stat Sci. 2007;22:523–80.
Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 1977.
Sjölander A, Greenland S. Ignoring the matching variables in cohort studies—When is it valid and why? Stat Med. 2013;32:4696–708.
Greenland S, Pearl J. Adjustments and their consequences—collapsibility analysis using graphical models. Int Stat Rev. 2011;79:401–26.
Gail MH. Adjusting for covariates that have the same distribution in exposed and unexposed cohorts. In: Moolgavkar SH, Prentice RL, editors. Modern statistical methods in chronic disease epidemiology. New York: Wiley; 1986. p. 3–18.
Robinson LD, Jewell NP. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression. Int Stat Rev. 1991;59:227–40.
Neuhaus J, Jewell NP. A geometric approach to assess bias due to omitted covariates in generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1993;80:807–15.
Robinson LD, Dorroh JR, Lien D, Tiku ML. The effects of covariate adjustment in generalized linear models. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 1998;27:1653–75.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the reviewers and Katherine Hoggatt for comments leading to clarification of several key points.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Greenland, S., Mansournia, M.A. Limitations of individual causal models, causal graphs, and ignorability assumptions, as illustrated by random confounding and design unfaithfulness. Eur J Epidemiol 30, 1101–1110 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-015-9995-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-015-9995-7