We reinterpret the instrumented difference-in-differences (iDID) under a linear instrumental variables (IV) model. Under the linear IV model, we show why iDID is a clear improvement over two existing methods, difference-in-differences (DID) and a cross-sectional, IV analysis. We also re-express some of the assumptions of iDID using familiar, regression-based identification assumptions. We conclude with a method inspired by the linear IV model that can potentially remedy the weak identification problem in iDID.

Ye, Ertefaie, Flory, Hennessy, and Small (YEFHS) proposed a new method, instrumented difference-in-differences, for dealing with unmeasured confounding. In this note, I connect and compare assumptions and identifications in instrumental variable (IV) and difference-in-differences (DID) methods with those in YEFHS, derive new identification results, and discuss different choices when extending such results to adjust for covariates.

In this paper, we respond to comments on our paper, "Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio.

We propose and study an augmented variant of the estimator proposed by Wang, Tchetgen Tchetgen, Martinussen, and Vansteelandt.

Wang, et al.'s estimator for causal hazard ratios for endogenous treatments makes an important addition to a researcher's toolkit for analyzing censored duration outcomes. Their method complements existing methods in the semiparametric treatment effects literature and suggests useful avenues for future research.

Copula is a popular method for modeling the dependence among marginal distributions in multivariate censored data. As many copula models are available, it is essential to check if the chosen copula model fits the data well for analysis. Existing approaches to testing the fitness of copula models are mainly for complete or right-censored data. No formal goodness-of-fit (GOF) test exists for interval-censored or recurrent events data. We develop a general GOF test for copula-based survival models using the information ratio (IR) to address this research gap. It can be applied to any copula family with a parametric form, such as the frequently used Archimedean, Gaussian, and D-vine families. The test statistic is easy to calculate, and the test procedure is straightforward to implement. We establish the asymptotic properties of the test statistic. The simulation results show that the proposed test controls the type-I error well and achieves adequate power when the dependence strength is moderate to high. Finally, we apply our method to test various copula models in analyzing multiple real datasets. Our method consistently separates different copula models for all these datasets in terms of model fitness.

When there is a predictive biomarker, enrichment can focus the clinical trial on a benefiting subpopulation. We describe a two-stage enrichment design, in which the first stage is designed to efficiently estimate a threshold and the second stage is a "phase III-like" trial on the enriched population. The goal of this paper is to explore design issues: sample size in Stages 1 and 2, and re-estimation of the Stage 2 sample size following Stage 1. By treating these as separate trials, we can gain insight into how the predictive nature of the biomarker specifically impacts the sample size. We also show that failure to adequately estimate the threshold can have disastrous consequences in the second stage. While any bivariate model could be used, we assume a continuous outcome and continuous biomarker, described by a bivariate normal model. The correlation coefficient between the outcome and biomarker is the key to understanding the behavior of the design, both for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Through a series of simulations we illustrate the impact of model misspecification, consequences of poor threshold estimation, and requisite sample sizes that depend on the predictive nature of the biomarker. Such insight should be helpful in understanding and designing enrichment trials.

A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (CRT) is a unidirectional crossover study in which timings of treatment initiation for clusters are randomized. Because the timing of treatment initiation is different for each cluster, an emerging question is whether the treatment effect depends on the exposure time, namely, the time duration since the initiation of treatment. Existing approaches for assessing exposure-time treatment effect heterogeneity either assume a parametric functional form of exposure time or model the exposure time as a categorical variable, in which case the number of parameters increases with the number of exposure-time periods, leading to a potential loss in efficiency. In this article, we propose a new model formulation for assessing treatment effect heterogeneity over exposure time. Rather than a categorical term for each level of exposure time, the proposed model includes a random effect to represent varying treatment effects by exposure time. This allows for pooling information across exposure-time periods and may result in more precise average and exposure-time-specific treatment effect estimates. In addition, we develop an accompanying permutation test for the variance component of the heterogeneous treatment effect parameters. We conduct simulation studies to compare the proposed model and permutation test to alternative methods to elucidate their finite-sample operating characteristics, and to generate practical guidance on model choices for assessing exposure-time treatment effect heterogeneity in stepped-wedge CRTs.

In biomedical science, analyzing treatment effect heterogeneity plays an essential role in assisting personalized medicine. The main goals of analyzing treatment effect heterogeneity include estimating treatment effects in clinically relevant subgroups and predicting whether a patient subpopulation might benefit from a particular treatment. Conventional approaches often evaluate the subgroup treatment effects via parametric modeling and can thus be susceptible to model mis-specifications. In this paper, we take a model-free semiparametric perspective and aim to efficiently evaluate the heterogeneous treatment effects of multiple subgroups simultaneously under the one-step targeted maximum-likelihood estimation (TMLE) framework. When the number of subgroups is large, we further expand this path of research by looking at a variation of the one-step TMLE that is robust to the presence of small estimated propensity scores in finite samples. From our simulations, our method demonstrates substantial finite sample improvements compared to conventional methods. In a case study, our method unveils the potential treatment effect heterogeneity of rs12916-T allele (a proxy for statin usage) in decreasing Alzheimer's disease risk.

I discuss the assumptions needed for identification of average treatment effects and local average treatment effects in instrumented difference-in-differences (IDID), and the possible trade-offs between assumptions of standard IV and those needed for the new proposal IDID, in one- and two-sample settings. I also discuss the interpretation of the estimands identified under monotonicity. I conclude by suggesting possible extensions to the estimation method, by outlining a strategy to use data-adaptive estimation of the nuisance parameters, based on recent developments.

Batch marking is common and useful for many capture-recapture studies where individual marks cannot be applied due to various constraints such as timing, cost, or marking difficulty. When batch marks are used, observed data are not individual capture histories but a set of counts including the numbers of individuals first marked, marked individuals that are recaptured, and individuals captured but released without being marked (applicable to some studies) on each capture occasion. Fitting traditional capture-recapture models to such data requires one to identify all possible sets of capture-recapture histories that may lead to the observed data, which is computationally infeasible even for a small number of capture occasions. In this paper, we propose a latent multinomial model to deal with such data, where the observed vector of counts is a non-invertible linear transformation of a latent vector that follows a multinomial distribution depending on model parameters. The latent multinomial model can be fitted efficiently through a saddlepoint approximation based maximum likelihood approach. The model framework is very flexible and can be applied to data collected with different study designs. Simulation studies indicate that reliable estimation results are obtained for all parameters of the proposed model. We apply the model to analysis of golden mantella data collected using batch marks in Central Madagascar.

For evaluating the quality of care provided by hospitals, special interest lies in the identification of performance outliers. The classification of healthcare providers as outliers or non-outliers is a decision under uncertainty, because the true quality is unknown and can only be inferred from an observed result of a quality indicator. We propose to embed the classification of healthcare providers into a Bayesian decision theoretical framework that enables the derivation of optimal decision rules with respect to the expected decision consequences. We propose paradigmatic utility functions for two typical purposes of hospital profiling: the external reporting of healthcare quality and the initiation of change in care delivery. We make use of funnel plots to illustrate and compare the resulting optimal decision rules and argue that sensitivity and specificity of the resulting decision rules should be analyzed. We then apply the proposed methodology to the area of hip replacement surgeries by analyzing data from 1,277 hospitals in Germany which performed over 180,000 such procedures in 2017. Our setting illustrates that the classification of outliers can be highly dependent upon the underlying utilities. We conclude that analyzing the classification of hospitals as a decision theoretic problem helps to derive transparent and justifiable decision rules. The methodology for classifying quality indicator results is implemented in an R package (iqtigbdt) and is available on GitHub.

The determination of alert concentrations, where a pre-specified threshold of the response variable is exceeded, is an important goal of concentration-response studies. The traditional approach is based on investigating the measured concentrations and attaining statistical significance of the alert concentration by using a multiple t-test procedure. In this paper, we propose a new model-based method to identify alert concentrations, based on fitting a concentration-response curve and constructing a simultaneous confidence band for the difference of the response of a concentration compared to the control. In order to obtain these confidence bands, we use a bootstrap approach which can be applied to any functional form of the concentration-response curve. This particularly offers the possibility to investigate also those situations where the concentration-response relationship is not monotone and, moreover, to detect alerts at concentrations which were not measured during the study, providing a highly flexible framework for the problem at hand.

The hazard ratio (HR) is often reported as the main causal effect when studying survival data. Despite its popularity, the HR suffers from an unclear causal interpretation. As already pointed out in the literature, there is a built-in selection bias in the HR, because similarly to the truncation by death problem, the HR conditions on post-treatment survival. A recently proposed alternative, inspired by the Survivor Average Causal Effect, is the causal HR, defined as the ratio between hazards across treatment groups among the study participants that would have survived regardless of their treatment assignment. We discuss the challenge in identifying the causal HR and present a sensitivity analysis identification approach in randomized controlled trials utilizing a working frailty model. We further extend our framework to adjust for potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting. We present a Cox-based and a flexible non-parametric kernel-based estimation under right censoring. We study the finite-sample properties of the proposed estimation methods through simulations. We illustrate the utility of our framework using two real-data examples.

We propose methods for estimating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of a prediction model in a target population that differs from the source population that provided the data used for original model development. If covariates that are associated with model performance, as measured by the AUC, have a different distribution in the source and target populations, then AUC estimators that only use data from the source population will not reflect model performance in the target population. Here, we provide identification results for the AUC in the target population when outcome and covariate data are available from the sample of the source population, but only covariate data are available from the sample of the target population. In this setting, we propose three estimators for the AUC in the target population and show that they are consistent and asymptotically normal. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the estimators using simulations and use them to estimate the AUC in a nationally representative target population from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for a lung cancer risk prediction model developed using source population data from the National Lung Screening Trial.

Clustered data frequently arise in biomedical studies, where observations, or subunits, measured within a cluster are associated. The cluster size is said to be informative, if the outcome variable is associated with the number of subunits in a cluster. In most existing work, the informative cluster size issue is handled by marginal approaches based on within-cluster resampling, or cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations. Although these approaches yield consistent estimation of the marginal models, they do not allow estimation of within-cluster associations and are generally inefficient. In this paper, we propose a semiparametric joint model for clustered interval-censored event time data with informative cluster size. We use a random effect to account for the association among event times of the same cluster as well as the association between event times and the cluster size. For estimation, we propose a sieve maximum likelihood approach and devise a computationally-efficient expectation-maximization algorithm for implementation. The estimators are shown to be strongly consistent, with the Euclidean components being asymptotically normal and achieving semiparametric efficiency. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the finite-sample performance, efficiency and robustness of the proposed method. We also illustrate our method via application to a motivating periodontal disease dataset.

Cox's proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical models to evaluate associations of exposure with a censored failure time outcome. When confounding factors are not fully observed, the exposure hazard ratio estimated using a Cox model is subject to unmeasured confounding bias. To address this, we propose a novel approach for the identification and estimation of the causal hazard ratio in the presence of unmeasured confounding factors. Our approach is based on a binary instrumental variable, and an additional no-interaction assumption in a first-stage regression of the treatment on the IV and unmeasured confounders. We propose, to the best of our knowledge, the first consistent estimator of the (population) causal hazard ratio within an instrumental variable framework. A version of our estimator admits a closed-form representation. We derive the asymptotic distribution of our estimator and provide a consistent estimator for its asymptotic variance. Our approach is illustrated via simulation studies and a data application.

We discuss Ye et al. 2022, which combines instrumental variables methods with difference in differences. First, we compare the paper to other works in the difference in differences literatures and argue that the main contribution lies in the multiply robust estimation approach. Then, we reformulate the causal assumptions in Ye et al. 2022 in the usual theoretical framework of the instrumental variables literature. This clarifies in which sense the difference in differences design can weaken the standard instrumental variable conditions.