Many causal models of interest in epidemiology involve longitudinal exposures, confounders and mediators. However, repeated measurements are not always available or used in practice, leading analysts to overlook the time-varying nature of exposures and work under over-simplified causal models. Our objective is to assess whether - and how - causal effects identified under such misspecified causal models relates to true causal effects of interest. We derive sufficient conditions ensuring that the quantities estimated in practice under over-simplified causal models can be expressed as weighted averages of longitudinal causal effects of interest. Unsurprisingly, these sufficient conditions are very restrictive, and our results state that the quantities estimated in practice should be interpreted with caution in general, as they usually do not relate to any longitudinal causal effect of interest. Our simulations further illustrate that the bias between the quantities estimated in practice and the weighted averages of longitudinal causal effects of interest can be substantial. Overall, our results confirm the need for repeated measurements to conduct proper analyses and/or the development of sensitivity analyses when they are not available.
翻译:许多对流行病学感兴趣的因果关系模型涉及纵向接触、混淆和调解者,然而,反复的测量并非总能得到或在实践中使用,导致分析家忽略了接触的时间变化性质以及过度简化的因果关系模型下的工作。我们的目标是评估此类错误的因果关系模型中查明的因果关系是否以及如何与真正的因果关系有关。我们有足够的条件确保过度简化的因果关系模型中的实际估计数量能够以纵向因果关系效应的加权平均值来表示。奇怪的是,这些足够条件非常严格,而且我们的结果表明,对实践中估计的数量应普遍谨慎解释,因为这些数量通常与任何纵向的因果关系效应无关。我们的模拟进一步表明,实践中估计的数量和纵向因果关系效应加权平均值之间的偏差可能很大。总体而言,我们的结果证实,有必要反复进行测量,以便进行适当的分析和/或进行敏感性分析。