On the Problem of Treatment Confounder Feedback

Causal Inference
Methods
Author
Affiliation

Joseph Bulbulia

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Published

11/6/22

Purpose

Causation occurs in time. Therefore, investigating the relationship between cause and effect requires time series data.

Causality is also dynamic. Where there is Treatment-Confounder Feedback, the relationship between cause and effect cannot be identified using standard regression methods, including multi-level regression and structural equation models. Instead, special methods - “G-methods” - are needed.

Here, I use three causal graphs to describe a problem of treatment-confounder feedback, and direct readers to G-methods for its solution.

My assumptions about you

  1. You are interested in psychological science.
  2. You understand how to read causal graphs
  3. Your “go-to” method for time-series analysis is either a latent growth curve or a multi-level model.

Confounding by Common Cause

Suppose we wish to compute the causal effect of treatment A on outcome Y. Because L is a common cause of both A and Y, L will lead to an association between A and Y. We face confounding by common cause. The good news: where L is measured, a regression model that conditions on L will break the association between A and Y. Again, causation occurs in time. We index measured nodes to ensure our data adhere to time’s arrow

Show the code
\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations}
\tikzstyle{Arrow} = [->, thin, preaction = {decorate}]
\tikzset{>=latex}

\begin{tikzpicture}[squarednode/.style={rectangle, draw=gray!90, fill=gray!5, auto}]
\tikzset{>=latex}
\tikzstyle{Arrow} = [->, thin, preaction = {decorate}]
\tikzstyle{DoubleArrow} = [-, preaction = {decorate}]
\node[squarednode] (1) {$L_{t-1}$};
\node[right =of 1] (2) {$A_{t}$};
\node[right =of 2] (3) {$Y_{t+1}$};
\draw[Arrow,bend left] (1) to (3);
\draw[Arrow] (1) to (2);
\end{tikzpicture}

Confounding by Over-Conditioning

Suppose Lt+1 is an effect of At. To condition on the common effect will induce a spurious association between At and Yt+1 through the unmeasured confounder U (red path). We may avoid this problem by excluding Lt+1 from our regression model. To know whether exclusion is warranted requires indexing the relative occurrences of A and L. However, without time-series data, we cannot generally know whether L is a cause of A or its effect. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the importance of collecting time-series data to infer causality. Although psychological scientists are familiar with adjustment by regression to address confounding by common cause, we are less familiar with the hazards of over-conditioning. Generally, confounding control in any observational science requires time series data.

Show the code
\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations}
\tikzstyle{Arrow} = [->, thin, preaction = {decorate}]
\tikzset{>=latex}

\begin{tikzpicture}
%\node [draw=none, align=center, font=\small] at (2,1) {\bf Condition on child of collider};
\node [draw = none, inner sep = 1] (U) at (0, 0) {$U$};
\node [draw = none, inner sep = 1] (A) at (.75, 0) {$A_{0}$};
\node [rectangle, draw=red, thick](L) at (1.75, 0) {$L_{1}$};
\node [draw = none, inner sep = 1] (Y) at (3, 0) {$Y_{2}$};
\draw [-latex, bend right=30, draw = red] (U) to (L);
\draw [-latex, bend left = 30, draw=red] (U) to (Y);
\draw [-latex,draw=red] (A) to (L);
\end{tikzpicture}

Confounding control for Treatment-Confounder Feedback: Damned if you condition damned if you do not.

Suppose we collect time series data. Suppose further that conditioning on L blocks an unmeasured common cause U of future treatments A and future outcomes Y. Suppose further, as in Figure 2, past states of A affect future states of L. Notice, regression faces a damned-if-we-do-damned-if-we-don’t adjustment challenge. On the one hand, to avoid confounding by a common cause we must adjust for L at all time points. On the other hand, adjusting for Lt+1 induces confounding by over-conditioning (paths in red). **Regression, including multi-level regression and structural equation models, must be abandoned.* There are alternatives to regression called G-methods that may address treatment-confounder feedback. One of these methods, the Marginal Structural Model, replaces L with inverse probability weights for the exposure. G-methods are described in Chapters 12 and 13 of Hernan and Robin’s()

Hernan, M. A., and J. M. Robins. 2023. Causal Inference. Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probab. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=\_KnHIAAACAAJ.
Show the code
\usetikzlibrary{positioning}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations}
\tikzstyle{Arrow} = [->, thin, preaction = {decorate}]
\tikzset{>=latex}

\begin{tikzpicture}[squarednode/.style={rectangle, draw=red!60, fill=red!5}, scale = 4]
\tikzset{>=latex}
\tikzstyle{Arrow} = [->, thin, preaction = {decorate}]
\tikzstyle{DoubleArrow} = [-, thick, dotted, preaction = {decorate}]

\node[draw=black, thick] (1) {L$_{t-1}$};
\node[right =of 1] (2) {A$_{t}$};
\node[right =of 2] (3) {Y$_{t+1}$};
\node[squarednode, right =of 3] (4) {L$_{t+1}$};
\node[right =of 4] (5) {A$_{t+1}$};
\node[right =of 5] (6) {Y$_{t+2}$};
\node[left =of 1] (7) {U};
\draw[Arrow] (1) -- (2);
\draw[Arrow] (4) -- (5);
\draw[Arrow] (7) to (1);
\draw[DoubleArrow, red, bend left=40] (2) to (6);
\draw[Arrow, bend right, red] (7) to (6);
\draw[Arrow, bend right, red] (7) to (4);
\draw[Arrow, bend right] (7) to (3);
\draw[Arrow, bend left, red] (2) to (4);
\end{tikzpicture}

Importance

I write this report to encourage psychological scientists to (1) collect time-series data and (2) address treatment-confounder feedback by employing G-methods. I do not write this report to cast stones. My published work offers ample illustrations of the problems that I describe here. On a positive note, a causal revolution in psychological science is upon us. Our best science remains ahead of us ().

VanderWeele, Tyler. 2015. Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford University Press.

References

Footnotes

  1. I will soon write a tutorial here for those who are unfamiliar↩︎

  2. We draw the minimum number of paths to clarify the problem.↩︎

Reuse

Citation

BibTeX citation:
@article{bulbulia2022,
  author = {Bulbulia, Joseph},
  title = {On the {Problem} of {Treatment} {Confounder} {Feedback}},
  journal = {PsyArXiv},
  date = {2022-11-06},
  url = {https://psyarxiv.com/tjnvh/},
  doi = {10.31234/osf.io/tjnvh},
  langid = {en}
}
For attribution, please cite this work as:
Bulbulia, Joseph. 2022. “On the Problem of Treatment Confounder Feedback.” PsyArXiv, November. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tjnvh.