Beyond Overall Treatment Effects: Leveraging Covariates in Randomized Experiments Guided by Causal Structure.

Ali Tafti,Galit Shmueli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0938

IF: 4.9

2020-01-01

Information Systems Research

Abstract:Research Spotlights (practice and policy-oriented abstract)

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Contrastive representations of high-dimensional, structured treatments

Oriol Corcoll Andreu,Athanasios Vlontzos,Michael O'Riordan,Ciaran M. Gilligan-Lee

2024-11-29

Abstract:Estimating causal effects is vital for decision making. In standard causal effect estimation, treatments are usually binary- or continuous-valued. However, in many important real-world settings, treatments can be structured, high-dimensional objects, such as text, video, or audio. This provides a challenge to traditional causal effect estimation. While leveraging the shared structure across different treatments can help generalize to unseen treatments at test time, we show in this paper that using such structure blindly can lead to biased causal effect estimation. We address this challenge by devising a novel contrastive approach to learn a representation of the high-dimensional treatments, and prove that it identifies underlying causal factors and discards non-causally relevant factors. We prove that this treatment representation leads to unbiased estimates of the causal effect, and empirically validate and benchmark our results on synthetic and real-world datasets.

Machine Learning,Artificial Intelligence
Disentangling Treatment and Placebo Effects in Randomized Experiments Using Principal Stratification-An Introduction

Reagan Mozer,Rob Kessels,Donald B. Rubin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77249-3_2

2018-01-01

Abstract:Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered the gold standard for estimating causal effects, for example of pharmaceutical treatments, the valid analysis of RCTs is more complicated with human units than with plants and other such objects. One potential complication that arises with human subjects is the possible existence of placebo effects in RCTs with placebo controls, where a treatment, suppose a new drug, is compared to a placebo, and for approval, the treatment must demonstrate better outcomes than the placebo. In such trials, the causal estimand of interest is the medical effect of the drug compared to placebo. But in practice, when a drug is prescribed by a doctor and the patient is aware of the prescription received, the patient can be expected to receive both a placebo effect and the active effect of the drug. An important issue for practice concerns how to disentangle the medical effect of the drug from the placebo effect of being treated using data arising in a placebo-controlled RCT. Our proposal uses principal stratification as the key statistical tool. The method is applied to initial data from an actual experiment to illustrate important ideas.
The Blessings of Multiple Treatments and Outcomes in Treatment Effect Estimation

Yong Wu,Mingzhou Liu,Jing Yan,Yanwei Fu,Shouyan Wang,Yizhou Wang,Xinwei Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.17283

2023-10-14

Abstract:Assessing causal effects in the presence of unobserved confounding is a challenging problem. Existing studies leveraged proxy variables or multiple treatments to adjust for the confounding bias. In particular, the latter approach attributes the impact on a single outcome to multiple treatments, allowing estimating latent variables for confounding control. Nevertheless, these methods primarily focus on a single outcome, whereas in many real-world scenarios, there is greater interest in studying the effects on multiple outcomes. Besides, these outcomes are often coupled with multiple treatments. Examples include the intensive care unit (ICU), where health providers evaluate the effectiveness of therapies on multiple health indicators. To accommodate these scenarios, we consider a new setting dubbed as multiple treatments and multiple outcomes. We then show that parallel studies of multiple outcomes involved in this setting can assist each other in causal identification, in the sense that we can exploit other treatments and outcomes as proxies for each treatment effect under study. We proceed with a causal discovery method that can effectively identify such proxies for causal estimation. The utility of our method is demonstrated in synthetic data and sepsis disease.

Methodology,Machine Learning
Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet flexible approach

Anastasios A Tsiatis,Marie Davidian,Min Zhang,Xiaomin Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3113

2008-10-15

Abstract:There is considerable debate regarding whether and how covariate-adjusted analyses should be used in the comparison of treatments in randomized clinical trials. Substantial baseline covariate information is routinely collected in such trials, and one goal of adjustment is to exploit covariates associated with outcome to increase precision of estimation of the treatment effect. However, concerns are routinely raised over the potential for bias when the covariates used are selected post hoc and the potential for adjustment based on a model of the relationship between outcome, covariates, and treatment to invite a 'fishing expedition' for that leading to the most dramatic effect estimate. By appealing to the theory of semiparametrics, we are led naturally to a characterization of all treatment effect estimators and to principled, practically feasible methods for covariate adjustment that yield the desired gains in efficiency and that allow covariate relationships to be identified and exploited while circumventing the usual concerns. The methods and strategies for their implementation in practice are presented. Simulation studies and an application to data from an HIV clinical trial demonstrate the performance of the techniques relative to the existing methods.
Leveraging covariate adjustments at scale in online A/B testing

Lorenzo Masoero,Doug Hains,James McQueen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.01109

2023-05-02

Abstract:Companies offering web services routinely run randomized online experiments to estimate the causal impact associated with the adoption of new features and policies on key performance metrics of interest. These experiments are used to estimate a variety of effects: the increase in click rate due to the repositioning of a banner, the impact on subscription rate as a consequence of a discount or special offer, etc. In these settings, even effects whose sizes are very small can have large downstream impacts. The simple difference in means estimator (Splawa-Neyman et al., 1990) is still the standard estimator of choice for many online A/B testing platforms due to its simplicity. This method, however, can fail to detect small effects, even when the experiment contains thousands or millions of observational units. As a by-product of these experiments, however, large amounts of additional data (covariates) are collected. In this paper, we discuss benefits, costs and risks of allowing experimenters to leverage more complicated estimators that make use of covariates when estimating causal effects of interest. We adapt a recently proposed general-purpose algorithm for the estimation of causal effects with covariates to the setting of online A/B tests. Through this paradigm, we implement several covariate-adjusted causal estimators. We thoroughly evaluate their performance at scale, highlighting benefits and shortcomings of different methods. We show on real experiments how "covariate-adjusted" estimators can (i) lead to more precise quantification of the causal effects of interest and (ii) fix issues related to imbalance across treatment arms - a practical concern often overlooked in the literature. In turn, (iii) these more precise estimates can reduce experimentation time, cutting cost and helping to streamline decision-making processes, allowing for faster adoption of beneficial interventions.

Methodology,Applications
Estimating Individual Causal Treatment Effect by Variable Decomposition

Hongyang Jiang,Yonghe Zhao,Qiang Huang,Yangkun Cao,Huiyan Sun,Yi Chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651441

2024-01-01

Abstract:Estimating individual-level causal effects is crucial for decision-making in various domains, such as personalized healthcare, social marketing, and public policy. Addressing confounding bias is a critical step in accurately estimating the causal effects of treatments on outcomes. However, many current causal inference approaches consider all observed variables as confounders without distinguishing them from colliders or indirect (two-order) colliders. This may lead to M-bias when improperly eliminating confounding bias. In this study, we propose a new framework to accurately estimate individual-level treatment effects by considering a causal structure that includes both confounding variables and indirect colliders. Specifically, we first perform a sample reweighting to approximately eliminate confounding bias. Then, we restore the covariate’ potential latent parents and extract the modules solely related to the outcome. Finally, we take both these modules with the treatment variables to infer counterfactuals for causal inference. To validate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we conduct extensive experiments on synthetic and commonly used semi-synthetic benchmark datasets. The experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms current state-of-the-art methods.
Flexible Inference of Optimal Individualized Treatment Strategy in Covariate Adjusted Randomization with Multiple Covariates

Trinetri Ghosh,Yanyuan Ma,Rui Song,Pingshou Zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.10425

2021-11-20

Abstract:To maximize clinical benefit, clinicians routinely tailor treatment to the individual characteristics of each patient, where individualized treatment rules are needed and are of significant research interest to statisticians. In the covariate-adjusted randomization clinical trial with many covariates, we model the treatment effect with an unspecified function of a single index of the covariates and leave the baseline response completely arbitrary. We devise a class of estimators to consistently estimate the treatment effect function and its associated index while bypassing the estimation of the baseline response, which is subject to the curse of dimensionality. We further develop inference tools to identify predictive covariates and isolate effective treatment region. The usefulness of the methods is demonstrated in both simulations and a clinical data example.

Methodology
Covariate Balancing Sensitivity Analysis for Extrapolating Randomized Trials across Locations

Xinkun Nie,Guido Imbens,Stefan Wager

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.04723

2021-12-09

Econometrics

Abstract:The ability to generalize experimental results from randomized control trials (RCTs) across locations is crucial for informing policy decisions in targeted regions. Such generalization is often hindered by the lack of identifiability due to unmeasured effect modifiers that compromise direct transport of treatment effect estimates from one location to another. We build upon sensitivity analysis in observational studies and propose an optimization procedure that allows us to get bounds on the treatment effects in targeted regions. Furthermore, we construct more informative bounds by balancing on the moments of covariates. In simulation experiments, we show that the covariate balancing approach is promising in getting sharper identification intervals.
Variability in Causal Effects and Noncompliance in a Multisite Trial: A Bivariate Hierarchical Generalized Random Coefficients Model for a Binary Outcome

Xinxin Sun,Yongyun Shin,Jennifer Elston Lafata,Stephen W. Raudenbush

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.10229

2024-10-17

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:Within each of 170 physicians, patients were randomized to access e‐assist, an online program that aimed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), or control. Compliance was partial: 78.34% of the experimental patients accessed e‐assist while no controls were provided the access. Of interest are the average causal effect of assignment to treatment and the complier average causal effect as well as the variation of these causal effects across physicians. Each physician generates probabilities of screening for experimental compliers (experimental patients who accessed e‐assist), control compliers (controls who would have accessed e‐assist had they been assigned to e‐assist), and never takers (patients who would have avoided e‐assist no matter what). Estimating physician‐specific probabilities jointly over physicians poses novel challenges. We address these challenges by maximum likelihood, factoring a "complete‐data likelihood" uniquely into the conditional distribution of screening and partially observed compliance given random effects and the distribution of random effects. We marginalize this likelihood using adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadrature. The approach is doubly iterative in that the conditional distribution defies analytic evaluation. Because the small sample size per physician constrains estimability of multiple random effects, we reduce their dimensionality using a shared random effects model having a factor analytic structure. We assess estimators and recommend sample sizes to produce reasonably accurate and precise estimates by simulation, and analyze data from a trial of a CRCS intervention.

public, environmental & occupational health,medicine, research & experimental,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Relaxed covariate overlap and margin-based causal effect estimation

Debashis Ghosh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.00816

2018-07-03

Abstract:In most nonrandomized observational studies, differences between treatment groups may arise not only due to the treatment but also because of the effect of confounders. Therefore, causal inference regarding the treatment effect is not as straightforward as in a randomized trial. To adjust for confounding due to measured covariates, a variety of methods based on the potential outcomes framework are used to estimate average treatment effects. One of the key assumptions is treatment positivity, which states that the probability of treatment is bounded away from zero and one for any possible combination of the confounders. Methods for performing causal inference when this assumption is violated are relatively limited. In this article, we discuss a new balance-related condition involving the convex hulls of treatment groups, which I term relaxed covariate overlap. An advantage of this concept is that it can be linked to a concept from machine learning, termed the margin. Introduction of relaxed covariate overlap leads to an approach in which one can perform causal inference in a three-step manner. The methodology is illustrated with two examples.

Methodology
A Machine-Learning Approach for Estimating Subgroup- and Individual-Level Treatment Effects: An Illustration Using the 65 Trial

Zia Sadique,Richard Grieve,Karla Diaz-Ordaz,Paul Mouncey,Francois Lamontagne,Stephen O'Neill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X221100717

Abstract:This article examines a causal machine-learning approach, causal forests (CF), for exploring the heterogeneity of treatment effects, without prespecifying a specific functional form.The CF approach is considered in the reanalysis of the 65 Trial and was found to provide similar estimates of subgroup effects to using a fixed parametric model.The CF approach also provides estimates of individual-level treatment effects that suggest that for most patients in the 65 Trial, the intervention is expected to reduce 90-d mortality but with wide levels of statistical uncertainty.The study illustrates how individual-level treatment effect estimates can be analyzed to generate hypotheses for further research about those patients who are likely to benefit most from an intervention.
Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial-eligible individuals

Issa Dahabreh,Sarah Robertson,Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen,Elizabeth Stuart,Miguel Hernan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13009

2019-10-29

Abstract:We consider methods for causal inference in randomized trials nested within cohorts of trial-eligible individuals, including those who are not randomized. We show how baseline covariate data from the entire cohort, and treatment and outcome data only from randomized individuals, can be used to identify potential (counterfactual) outcome means and average treatment effects in the target population of all eligible individuals. We review identifiability conditions, propose estimators, and assess the estimators' finite-sample performance in simulation studies. As an illustration, we apply the estimators in a trial nested within a cohort of trial-eligible individuals to compare coronary artery bypass grafting surgery plus medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone for chronic coronary artery disease.

Methodology
The Design Versus the Analysis of Observational Studies for Causal Effects: Parallels with the Design of Randomized Trials

Donald B. Rubin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2739

2006-01-01

Statistics in Medicine

Abstract:For estimating causal effects of treatments, randomized experiments are generally considered the gold standard. Nevertheless, they are often infeasible to conduct for a variety of reasons, such as ethical concerns, excessive expense, or timeliness. Consequently, much of our knowledge of causal effects must come from non-randomized observational studies. This article will advocate the position that observational studies can and should be designed to approximate randomized experiments as closely as possible. In particular, observational studies should be designed using only background information to create subgroups of similar treated and control units, where 'similar' here refers to their distributions of background variables. Of great importance, this activity should be conducted without any access to any outcome data, thereby assuring the objectivity of the design. In many situations, this objective creation of subgroups of similar treated and control units, which are balanced with respect to covariates, can be accomplished using propensity score methods. The theoretical perspective underlying this position will be presented followed by a particular application in the context of the US tobacco litigation. This application uses propensity score methods to create subgroups of treated units (male current smokers) and control units (male never smokers) who are at least as similar with respect to their distributions of observed background characteristics as if they had been randomized. The collection of these subgroups then 'approximate' a randomized block experiment with respect to the observed covariates.
Conditional and Unconditional Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, and Interpretation

Jiawei Wei,Jiajun Xu,Björn Bornkamp,Ray Lin,Hong Tian,Dong Xi,Xin Zhang,Ziqiang Zhao,Satrajit Roychoudhury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2023.2292774

2024-01-07

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research

Abstract:ICH E9(R1) specifies the importance of precisely defining the treatment effect for clinical trials—to inform patient choices and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. FDA's guidance on covariate adjustment encourages the judicious use of baseline covariates to enhance efficiency. Careful consideration is required when adjusting for covariates in nonlinear models such as logistic regression and Cox regression. For these nonlinear models, including baseline covariates can change the targeted treatment effect (estimand). It is also crucial that the proposed statistical analyses align with the estimand of interest. Covariate-adjusted estimators used for unconditional treatment effect are typically robust to misspecification of the used regression models. Despite extensive literature and recommendations by the FDA on the statistical theory and properties of these methods, the real-life application of such methodologies is still limited. Moreover, a few open questions require further discussion, especially for time-to-event outcomes. In this article, we present causal estimands definition of conditional and unconditional treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. We also evaluate different estimation methods for estimating conditional and unconditional treatment effects for the binary and time-to-event endpoints. We also discuss practical considerations in choosing the conditional versus unconditional effect, implementing the estimation methods, and interpreting results.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions

Richard Emsley,Graham Dunn,Ian R White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280209105014

IF: 2.494

2009-07-16

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract:Complex intervention trials should be able to answer both pragmatic and explanatory questions in order to test the theories motivating the intervention and help understand the underlying nature of the clinical problem being tested. Key to this is the estimation of direct effects of treatment and indirect effects acting through intermediate variables which are measured post-randomisation. Using psychological treatment trials as an example of complex interventions, we review statistical methods which crucially evaluate both direct and indirect effects in the presence of hidden confounding between mediator and outcome. We review the historical literature on mediation and moderation of treatment effects. We introduce two methods from within the existing causal inference literature, principal stratification and structural mean models, and demonstrate how these can be applied in a mediation context before discussing approaches and assumptions necessary for attaining identifiability of key parameters of the basic causal model. Assuming that there is modification by baseline covariates of the effect of treatment (i.e. randomisation) on the mediator (i.e. covariate by treatment interactions), but no direct effect on the outcome of these treatment by covariate interactions leads to the use of instrumental variable methods. We describe how moderation can occur through post-randomisation variables, and extend the principal stratification approach to multiple group methods with explanatory models nested within the principal strata. We illustrate the new methodology with motivating examples of randomised trials from the mental health literature.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
A Causal Inference Framework for Leveraging External Controls in Hybrid Trials

Michael Valancius,Herb Pang,Jiawen Zhu,Stephen R Cole,Michele Jonsson Funk,Michael R Kosorok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.08969

2023-05-16

Abstract:We consider the challenges associated with causal inference in settings where data from a randomized trial is augmented with control data from an external source to improve efficiency in estimating the average treatment effect (ATE). Through the development of a formal causal inference framework, we outline sufficient causal assumptions about the exchangeability between the internal and external controls to identify the ATE and establish the connection to a novel graphical criteria. We propose estimators, review efficiency bounds, develop an approach for efficient doubly-robust estimation even when unknown nuisance models are estimated with flexible machine learning methods, and demonstrate finite-sample performance through a simulation study. To illustrate the ideas and methods, we apply the framework to a trial investigating the effect of risdisplam on motor function in patients with spinal muscular atrophy for which there exists an external set of control patients from a previous trial.

Methodology,Machine Learning
Unmasking Bias: A Framework for Evaluating Treatment Benefit Predictors Using Observational Studies

Yuan Xia,Mohsen Sadatsafavi,Paul Gustafson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.05585

2024-07-08

Abstract:Treatment benefit predictors (TBPs) map patient characteristics into an estimate of the treatment benefit tailored to individual patients, which can support optimizing treatment decisions. However, the assessment of their performance might be challenging with the non-random treatment assignment. This study conducts a conceptual analysis, which can be applied to finite-sample studies. We present a framework for evaluating TBPs using observational data from a target population of interest. We then explore the impact of confounding bias on TBP evaluation using measures of discrimination and calibration, which are the moderate calibration and the concentration of the benefit index ($C_b$), respectively. We illustrate that failure to control for confounding can lead to misleading values of performance metrics and establish how the confounding bias propagates to an evaluation bias to quantify the explicit bias for the performance metrics. These findings underscore the necessity of accounting for confounding factors when evaluating TBPs, ensuring more reliable and contextually appropriate treatment decisions.

Methodology
11. Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects with Time-Varying Treatments and Time-Varying Outcomes

Jennie E. Brand,Yu Xie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2007.00185.x

2007-01-01

Sociological Methodology

Abstract:We develop an approach to identifying and estimating causal effects in longitudinal settings with time-varying treatments and time-varying outcomes. The classic potential outcome approach to causal inference generally involves two time periods: units of analysis are exposed to one of two possible values of the causal variable, treatment or control, at a given point in time, and values for an outcome are assessed some time subsequent to exposure. In this paper, we develop a potential outcome approach for longitudinal situations in which both exposure to treatment and the effects of treatment are time-varying. In this longitudinal setting, the research interest centers not on only two potential outcomes, but on a whole matrix of potential outcomes, requiring a complicated conceptualization of many potential counterfactuals. Motivated by sociological applications, we develop a simplification scheme—a weighted composite causal effect that allows identification and estimation of effects with a number of possible solutions. Our approach is illustrated via an analysis of the effects of disability on subsequent employment status using panel data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study.
Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a new target population

Issa J. Dahabreh,Sarah E. Robertson,Jon A. Steingrimsson,Elizabeth A. Stuart,Miguel A. Hernan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.00550

2019-10-28

Abstract:When treatment effect modifiers influence the decision to participate in a randomized trial, the average treatment effect in the population represented by the randomized individuals will differ from the effect in other populations. In this tutorial, we consider methods for extending causal inferences about time-fixed treatments from a trial to a new target population of non-participants, using data from a completed randomized trial and baseline covariate data from a sample from the target population. We examine methods based on modeling the expectation of the outcome, the probability of participation, or both (doubly robust). We compare the methods in a simulation study and show how they can be implemented in software. We apply the methods to a randomized trial nested within a cohort of trial-eligible patients to compare coronary artery surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for patients with chronic coronary artery disease. We conclude by discussing issues that arise when using the methods in applied analyses.

Methodology
Causal progress with imperfect placebo treatments and outcomes

Adam Rohde,Chad Hazlett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.15266

2023-10-23

Methodology

Abstract:In the quest to make defensible causal claims from observational data, it is sometimes possible to leverage information from "placebo treatments" and "placebo outcomes" (or "negative outcome controls"). Existing approaches employing such information focus largely on point identification and assume (i) "perfect placebos", meaning placebo treatments have precisely zero effect on the outcome and the real treatment has precisely zero effect on a placebo outcome; and (ii) "equiconfounding", meaning that the treatment-outcome relationship where one is a placebo suffers the same amount of confounding as does the real treatment-outcome relationship, on some scale. We instead consider an omitted variable bias framework, in which users can postulate non-zero effects of placebo treatment on real outcomes or of real treatments on placebo outcomes, and the relative strengths of confounding suffered by a placebo treatment/outcome compared to the true treatment-outcome relationship. Once postulated, these assumptions identify or bound the linear estimates of treatment effects. While applicable in many settings, one ubiquitous use-case for this approach is to employ pre-treatment outcomes as (perfect) placebo outcomes. In this setting, the parallel trends assumption of difference-in-difference is in fact a strict equiconfounding assumption on a particular scale, which can be relaxed in our framework. Finally, we demonstrate the use of our framework with two applications, employing an R package that implements these approaches.

Beyond Overall Treatment Effects: Leveraging Covariates in Randomized Experiments Guided by Causal Structure.

Contrastive representations of high-dimensional, structured treatments

Disentangling Treatment and Placebo Effects in Randomized Experiments Using Principal Stratification-An Introduction

The Blessings of Multiple Treatments and Outcomes in Treatment Effect Estimation

Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet flexible approach

Leveraging covariate adjustments at scale in online A/B testing

Estimating Individual Causal Treatment Effect by Variable Decomposition

Flexible Inference of Optimal Individualized Treatment Strategy in Covariate Adjusted Randomization with Multiple Covariates

Covariate Balancing Sensitivity Analysis for Extrapolating Randomized Trials across Locations

Variability in Causal Effects and Noncompliance in a Multisite Trial: A Bivariate Hierarchical Generalized Random Coefficients Model for a Binary Outcome

Relaxed covariate overlap and margin-based causal effect estimation

A Machine-Learning Approach for Estimating Subgroup- and Individual-Level Treatment Effects: An Illustration Using the 65 Trial

Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial-eligible individuals

The Design Versus the Analysis of Observational Studies for Causal Effects: Parallels with the Design of Randomized Trials

Conditional and Unconditional Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, and Interpretation

Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions

A Causal Inference Framework for Leveraging External Controls in Hybrid Trials

Unmasking Bias: A Framework for Evaluating Treatment Benefit Predictors Using Observational Studies

11. Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects with Time-Varying Treatments and Time-Varying Outcomes

Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a new target population

Causal progress with imperfect placebo treatments and outcomes