DOCSLIB.ORG

Causal Inference: What If

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Causal Inference: What If Causal Inference: What If Miguel A. Hernán, James M. Robins October 23, 2019 ii Causal Inference Contents Introduction: Towards less casual causal inferences vii I Causal inference without models 1 1Adefinition of causal effect 3 1.1 Individual causal effects....................... 3 1.2 Average causal effects........................ 4 1.3 Measures of causal effect....................... 7 1.4 Random variability .......................... 8 1.5Causationversusassociation.................... 10 2 Randomized experiments 13 2.1Randomization............................ 13 2.2Conditionalrandomization..................... 17 2.3Standardization............................ 19 2.4 Inverse probability weighting .................... 20 3 Observational studies 25 3.1 Identifiability conditions . ..................... 25 3.2 Exchangeability ............................ 27 3.3Positivity............................... 30 3.4 Consistency: First, definethecounterfactualoutcome...... 31 3.5 Consistency: Second, link counterfactuals to the observed data . 35 3.6Thetargettrial............................ 37 4Effect modification 41 4.1 Definition of effect modification................... 41 4.2 Stratification to identify effect modification............ 43 4.3 Why care about effect modification................. 45 4.4 Stratificationasaformofadjustment............... 47 4.5Matchingasanotherformofadjustment.............. 49 4.6 Effect modificationandadjustmentmethods........... 50 5 Interaction 55 5.1Interactionrequiresajointintervention.............. 55 5.2Identifyinginteraction........................ 56 5.3Counterfactualresponsetypesandinteraction........... 58 5.4 Sufficientcauses........................... 60 5.5 Sufficientcauseinteraction..................... 63 5.6 Counterfactuals or sufficient-componentcauses?.......... 65 iv Causal Inference 6 Graphical representation of causal effects 69 6.1Causaldiagrams........................... 69 6.2Causaldiagramsandmarginalindependence........... 71 6.3Causaldiagramsandconditionalindependence.......... 73 6.4Positivityandconsistencyincausaldiagrams........... 75 6.5 A structural classificationofbias.................. 78 6.6 The structure of effect modification................. 80 7 Confounding 83 7.1Thestructureofconfounding.................... 83 7.2 Confounding and exchangeability .................. 85 7.3 Confounding and the backdoor criterion .............. 87 7.4 Confounding and confounders .................... 90 7.5Single-worldinterventiongraphs.................. 93 7.6 Confounding adjustment . ..................... 94 8 Selection bias 99 8.1Thestructureofselectionbias................... 99 8.2Examplesofselectionbias...................... 101 8.3Selectionbiasandconfounding................... 103 8.4Selectionbiasandcensoring..................... 105 8.5Howtoadjustforselectionbias................... 107 8.6Selectionwithoutbias........................ 110 9 Measurement bias 113 9.1Measurementerror.......................... 113 9.2Thestructureofmeasurementerror................ 114 9.3 Mismeasured confounders . ..................... 116 9.4 Intention-to-treat effect: the effect of a misclassified treatment . 117 9.5 Per-protocol effect.......................... 119 10 Random variability 123 10.1 Identificationversusestimation.................. 123 10.2 Estimation of causal effects.................... 126 10.3Themythofthesuper-population................. 128 10.4Theconditionality“principle”................... 129 10.5Thecurseofdimensionality.................... 133 II Causal inference with models 137 11 Why model? 139 11.1Datacannotspeakforthemselves................. 139 11.2Parametricestimatorsoftheconditionalmean.......... 141 11.3Nonparametricestimatorsoftheconditionalmean....... 142 11.4Smoothing.............................. 143 11.5 The bias-variance trade-off ..................... 145 12 IP weighting and marginal structural models 149 12.1Thecausalquestion......................... 149 12.2EstimatingIPweightsviamodeling................ 150 12.3StabilizedIPweights........................ 153 12.4Marginalstructuralmodels..................... 155 12.5 Effect modificationandmarginalstructuralmodels....... 157 CONTENTS v 12.6Censoringandmissingdata.................... 158 13 Standardization and the parametric g-formula 161 13.1StandardizationasanalternativetoIPweighting........ 161 13.2Estimatingthemeanoutcomeviamodeling........... 163 13.3 Standardizing the mean outcome to the confounder distribution 164 13.4IPweightingorstandardization?................. 165 13.5Howseriouslydowetakeourestimates?............. 167 14 G-estimation of structural nested models 171 14.1Thecausalquestionrevisited................... 171 14.2 Exchangeability revisited . ..................... 172 14.3Structuralnestedmeanmodels.................. 173 14.4Rankpreservation.......................... 175 14.5G-estimation............................. 177 14.6Structuralnestedmodelswithtwoormoreparameters..... 179 15 Outcome regression and propensity scores 183 15.1Outcomeregression......................... 183 15.2Propensityscores.......................... 185 15.3 Propensity stratificationandstandardization........... 186 15.4Propensitymatching........................ 188 15.5Propensitymodels,structuralmodels,predictivemodels.... 189 16 Instrumental variable estimation 193 16.1Thethreeinstrumentalconditions................. 193 16.2TheusualIVestimand....................... 196 16.3Afourthidentifyingcondition:homogeneity........... 198 16.4Analternativefourthcondition:monotonicity.......... 200 16.5Thethreeinstrumentalconditionsrevisited........... 204 16.6Instrumentalvariableestimationversusothermethods..... 206 17 Causal survival analysis 209 17.1Hazardsandrisks.......................... 209 17.2Fromhazardstorisks........................ 211 17.3Whycensoringmatters....................... 214 17.4IPweightingofmarginalstructuralmodels............ 216 17.5Theparametricg-formula..................... 217 17.6G-estimationofstructuralnestedmodels............. 219 18 Variable selection for causal inference 223 18.1 The different goals of variable selection .............. 223 18.2Variablesthatinduceoramplifybias............... 225 18.3Causalinferenceandmachinelearning.............. 228 18.4Doublyrobustmachinelearningestimators............ 229 18.5 Variable selection is a difficultproblem.............. 230 III Causal inference from complex longitudinal data 233 19 Time-varying treatments 235 19.1 The causal effectoftime-varyingtreatments........... 235 19.2Treatmentstrategies........................ 236 19.3Sequentiallyrandomizedexperiments............... 237 vi Causal Inference 19.4Sequentialexchangeability..................... 240 19.5 Identifiability under some but not all treatment strategies . 241 19.6 Time-varying confounding and time-varying confounders .... 245 20 Treatment-confounder feedback 247 20.1Theelementsoftreatment-confounderfeedback......... 247 20.2Thebiasoftraditionalmethods.................. 249 20.3Whytraditionalmethodsfail................... 251 20.4 Why traditional methods cannot be fixed............. 253 20.5Adjustingforpasttreatment.................... 254 21 G-methods for time-varying treatments 257 21.1Theg-formulafortime-varyingtreatments............ 257 21.2IPweightingfortime-varyingtreatments............. 260 21.3Adoublyrobustestimatorfortime-varyingtreatments..... 265 21.4G-estimationfortime-varyingtreatments............. 267 21.5Censoringisatime-varyingtreatment.............. 273 22 Target trial emulation 277 22.1Thetargettrial(revisited)..................... 277 22.2 Causal effectsinrandomizedtrials................ 278 22.3 Causal effects in observational analyses that emulate a target trial281 22.4Timezero.............................. 283 22.5 A unifiedanalysisforcausalinference............... 284 References 288 INTRODUCTION: TOWARDS LESS CASUAL CAUSAL INFERENCES Causal Inference is an admittedly pretentious title for a book. Causal inference is a complex scientific task that relies on triangulating evidence from multiple sources and on the application of a variety of methodological approaches. No book can possibly provide a comprehensive description of methodologies for causal inference across the sciences. The authors of any Causal Inference book will have to choose which aspects of causal inference methodology they want to emphasize. The title of this introduction reflects our own choices: a book that helps scientists–especially health and social scientists–generate and analyze data to make causal inferences that are explicit about both the causal question and the assumptions underlying the data analysis. Unfortunately, the scientific literature is plagued by studies in which the causal question is not explicitly stated and the investigators’ unverifiable assumptions are not declared. This casual attitude towards causal inference has led to a great deal of confusion. For example, it is not uncommon to find studies in which the effect estimates are hard to interpret because the data analysis methods cannot appropriately answer the causal question (were it explicitly stated) under the investigators’ assumptions (were they declared). In this book, we stress the need to take the causal question seriously enough to articulate it, and to delineate the separate roles of data and assumptions for causal inference. Once these foundations are in place, causal inferences become necessarily less casual, which helps prevent confusion. The book describes various data analysis approaches that can be used to estimate the causal effect of interest under a particular
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Practice of Causal Inference in Cancer Epidemiology
    Vol. 5. 303-31 1, April 1996 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 303 Review The Practice of Causal Inference in Cancer Epidemiology Douglas L. Weedt and Lester S. Gorelic causes lung cancer (3) and to guide causal inference for occu- Preventive Oncology Branch ID. L. W.l and Comprehensive Minority pational and environmental diseases (4). From 1965 to 1995, Biomedical Program IL. S. 0.1. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland many associations have been examined in terms of the central 20892 questions of causal inference. Causal inference is often practiced in review articles and editorials. There, epidemiologists (and others) summarize evi- Abstract dence and consider the issues of causality and public health Causal inference is an important link between the recommendations for specific exposure-cancer associations. practice of cancer epidemiology and effective cancer The purpose of this paper is to take a first step toward system- prevention. Although many papers and epidemiology atically reviewing the practice of causal inference in cancer textbooks have vigorously debated theoretical issues in epidemiology. Techniques used to assess causation and to make causal inference, almost no attention has been paid to the public health recommendations are summarized for two asso- issue of how causal inference is practiced. In this paper, ciations: alcohol and breast cancer, and vasectomy and prostate we review two series of review papers published between cancer. The alcohol and breast cancer association is timely, 1985 and 1994 to find answers to the following questions: controversial, and in the public eye (5). It involves a common which studies and prior review papers were cited, which exposure and a common cancer and has a large body of em- causal criteria were used, and what causal conclusions pirical evidence; over 50 studies and over a dozen reviews have and public health recommendations ensued.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistics and Causal Inference (With Discussion)
    Applied Statistics Lecture Notes Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Princeton University February 2, 2008 Making statistical inferences means to learn about what you do not observe, which is called parameters, from what you do observe, which is called data. We learn the basic principles of statistical inference from a perspective of causal inference, which is a popular goal of political science research. Namely, we study statistics by learning how to make causal inferences with statistical methods. 1 Statistical Framework of Causal Inference What do we exactly mean when we say “An event A causes another event B”? Whether explicitly or implicitly, this question is asked and answered all the time in political science research. The most commonly used statistical framework of causality is based on the notion of counterfactuals (see Holland, 1986). That is, we ask the question “What would have happened if an event A were absent (or existent)?” The following example illustrates the fact that some causal questions are more difficult to answer than others. Example 1 (Counterfactual and Causality) Interpret each of the following statements as a causal statement. 1. A politician voted for the education bill because she is a democrat. 2. A politician voted for the education bill because she is liberal. 3. A politician voted for the education bill because she is a woman. In this framework, therefore, the fundamental problem of causal inference is that the coun- terfactual outcomes cannot be observed, and yet any causal inference requires both factual and counterfactual outcomes. This idea is formalized below using the potential outcomes notation.
    [Show full text]
  • Bayesian Causal Inference
    Bayesian Causal Inference Maximilian Kurthen Master’s Thesis Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics Within the Elite Master Program Theoretical and Mathematical Physics Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Technical University of Munich Supervisor: PD Dr. Torsten Enßlin Munich, September 12, 2018 Abstract In this thesis we address the problem of two-variable causal inference. This task refers to inferring an existing causal relation between two random variables (i.e. X → Y or Y → X ) from purely observational data. We begin by outlining a few basic definitions in the context of causal discovery, following the widely used do-Calculus [Pea00]. We continue by briefly reviewing a number of state-of-the-art methods, including very recent ones such as CGNN [Gou+17] and KCDC [MST18]. The main contribution is the introduction of a novel inference model where we assume a Bayesian hierarchical model, pursuing the strategy of Bayesian model selection. In our model the distribution of the cause variable is given by a Poisson lognormal distribution, which allows to explicitly regard discretization effects. We assume Fourier diagonal covariance operators, where the values on the diagonal are given by power spectra. In the most shallow model these power spectra and the noise variance are fixed hyperparameters. In a deeper inference model we replace the noise variance as a given prior by expanding the inference over the noise variance itself, assuming only a smooth spatial structure of the noise variance. Finally, we make a similar expansion for the power spectra, replacing fixed power spectra as hyperparameters by an inference over those, where again smoothness enforcing priors are assumed.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation
    VOLUME 122 DECEMBER 2008 NUMBER 2 © 2008 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES CAUSAL INFERENCE IN CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION D. James Greiner TABLE OF CONTENTS I. REGRESSION’S DIFFICULTIES AND THE ABSENCE OF A CAUSAL INFERENCE FRAMEWORK ...................................................540 A. What Is Regression? .........................................................................................................540 B. Problems with Regression: Bias, Ill-Posed Questions, and Specification Issues .....543 1. Bias of the Analyst......................................................................................................544 2. Ill-Posed Questions......................................................................................................544 3. Nature of the Model ...................................................................................................545 4. One Regression, or Two?............................................................................................555 C. The Fundamental Problem: Absence of a Causal Framework ....................................556 II. POTENTIAL OUTCOMES: DEFINING CAUSAL EFFECTS AND BEYOND .................557 A. Primitive Concepts: Treatment, Units, and the Fundamental Problem.....................558 B. Additional Units and the Non-Interference Assumption.............................................560 C. Donating Values: Filling in the Missing Counterfactuals ...........................................562 D. Randomization: Balance in Background Variables ......................................................563
    [Show full text]
  • Medicine in 18Th and 19Th Century Britain, 1700-1900
    Medicine in 18th and 19th century Britain, 1700‐1900 The breakthroughs th 1798: Edward Jenner – The development of How had society changed to make medical What was behind the 19 C breakthroughs? Changing ideas of causes breakthroughs possible? vaccinations Jenner trained by leading surgeon who taught The first major breakthrough came with Louis Pasteur’s germ theory which he published in 1861. His later students to observe carefully and carry out own Proved vaccination prevented people catching smallpox, experiments proved that bacteria (also known as microbes or germs) cause diseases. However, this did not put an end The changes described in the Renaissance were experiments instead of relying on knowledge in one of the great killer diseases. Based on observation and to all earlier ideas. Belief that bad air was to blame continued, which is not surprising given the conditions in many the result of rapid changes in society, but they did books – Jenner followed these methods. scientific experiment. However, did not understand what industrial towns. In addition, Pasteur’s theory was a very general one until scientists begun to identify the individual also build on changes and ideas from earlier caused smallpox all how vaccination worked. At first dad bacteria which cause particular diseases. So, while this was one of the two most important breakthroughs in ideas centuries. The flushing toilet important late 19th C invention wants opposition to making vaccination compulsory by law about what causes disease and illness it did not revolutionise medicine immediately. Scientists and doctors where the 1500s Renaissance – flushing system sent waste instantly down into – overtime saved many people’s lives and wiped‐out first to be convinced of this theory, but it took time for most people to understand it.
    [Show full text]
  • Bradford Hill Criteria for Causal Inference Based on a Presentation at the 2015 ANZEA Conference
    Bradford Hill Criteria for Causal Inference Based on a presentation at the 2015 ANZEA Conference Julian​ King Director,​ Julian King & Associates – a member of the Kinnect Group www.julianking.co.nz​ | www.kinnect.co.nz 2015 We think we’re good at determining causality, but we suck at it One​ of the great At​ one level, this is an Unfortunately,​ though, the challenges in evaluation is everyday, common sense way we are wired does not determining whether the task. As a species we’ve predispose us to logical results we’re seeing are been making judgments thinking. We are inclined because of the program about causation for a to be led astray by all sorts we’re evaluating, some million years or so. of biases and heuristics. other influences out there in the big world, or random chance. The​ Kinnect Group www.kinnect.co.nz 2 Along came logic Eventually,​ after a very long time, we evolved into philosophers who invented formal logic. Thanks to scientific method, our species has recently triumphed to the extent that we now have cars that drive themselves and flying drones that deliver pizza (don’t confuse this with progress – we still suck at ethics but that’s a story for another day). 3 But we’re still not great at causation Over​ time, the rocket But​ deep down we’re still Such​ a rigid view is not science for dealing with biased, heuristical beings much use in the real causation has become and not very good at world, where there are all more sophisticated – a thinking things through.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Bacteriology
    LECTURE NOTES Degree and Diploma Programs For Environmental Health Students Medical Bacteriology Abilo Tadesse, Meseret Alem University of Gondar In collaboration with the Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, The Carter Center, the Ethiopia Ministry of Health, and the Ethiopia Ministry of Education September 2006 Funded under USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 663-A-00-00-0358-00. Produced in collaboration with the Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, The Carter Center, the Ethiopia Ministry of Health, and the Ethiopia Ministry of Education. Important Guidelines for Printing and Photocopying Limited permission is granted free of charge to print or photocopy all pages of this publication for educational, not-for-profit use by health care workers, students or faculty. All copies must retain all author credits and copyright notices included in the original document. Under no circumstances is it permissible to sell or distribute on a commercial basis, or to claim authorship of, copies of material reproduced from this publication. ©2006 by Abilo Tadesse, Meseret Alem All rights reserved. Except as expressly provided above, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission of the author or authors. This material is intended for educational use only by practicing health care workers or students and faculty in a health care field. PREFACE Text book on Medical Bacteriology for Medical Laboratory Technology students are not available as need, so this lecture note will alleviate the acute shortage of text books and reference materials on medical bacteriology.
    [Show full text]
  • Causation and Causal Inference in Epidemiology
    PUBLIC HEALTH MAnERS Causation and Causal Inference in Epidemiology Kenneth J. Rothman. DrPH. Sander Greenland. MA, MS, DrPH. C Stat fixed. In other words, a cause of a disease Concepts of cause and causal inference are largely self-taught from early learn- ing experiences. A model of causation that describes causes in terms of suffi- event is an event, condition, or characteristic cient causes and their component causes illuminates important principles such that preceded the disease event and without as multicausality, the dependence of the strength of component causes on the which the disease event either would not prevalence of complementary component causes, and interaction between com- have occun-ed at all or would not have oc- ponent causes. curred until some later time. Under this defi- Philosophers agree that causal propositions cannot be proved, and find flaws or nition it may be that no specific event, condi- practical limitations in all philosophies of causal inference. Hence, the role of logic, tion, or characteristic is sufiicient by itself to belief, and observation in evaluating causal propositions is not settled. Causal produce disease. This is not a definition, then, inference in epidemiology is better viewed as an exercise in measurement of an of a complete causal mechanism, but only a effect rather than as a criterion-guided process for deciding whether an effect is pres- component of it. A "sufficient cause," which ent or not. (4m JPub//cHea/f/i. 2005;95:S144-S150. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204) means a complete causal mechanism, can be defined as a set of minimal conditions and What do we mean by causation? Even among eral.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiments & Observational Studies: Causal Inference in Statistics
    Experiments & Observational Studies: Causal Inference in Statistics Paul R. Rosenbaum Department of Statistics University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6340 1 My Concept of a ‘Tutorial’ In the computer era, we often receive compressed • files, .zip. Minimize redundancy, minimize storage, at the expense of intelligibility. Sometimes scientific journals seemed to have been • compressed. Tutorial goal is: ‘uncompress’. Make it possible to • read a current article or use current software without going back to dozens of earlier articles. 2 A Causal Question At age 45, Ms. Smith is diagnosed with stage II • breast cancer. Her oncologist discusses with her two possible treat- • ments: (i) lumpectomy alone, or (ii) lumpectomy plus irradiation. They decide on (ii). Ten years later, Ms. Smith is alive and the tumor • has not recurred. Her surgeon, Steve, and her radiologist, Rachael de- • bate. Rachael says: “The irradiation prevented the recur- • rence – without it, the tumor would have recurred.” Steve says: “You can’t know that. It’s a fantasy – • you’re making it up. We’ll never know.” 3 Many Causal Questions Steve and Rachael have this debate all the time. • About Ms. Jones, who had lumpectomy alone. About Ms. Davis, whose tumor recurred after a year. Whenever a patient treated with irradiation remains • disease free, Rachael says: “It was the irradiation.” Steve says: “You can’t know that. It’s a fantasy. We’ll never know.” Rachael says: “Let’s keep score, add ’em up.” Steve • says: “You don’t know what would have happened to Ms. Smith, or Ms. Jones, or Ms Davis – you just made it all up, it’s all fantasy.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Pathological Epidemiology in Diabetes Mellitus and Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Submit a Manuscript: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/ World J Hepatol 2016 September 28; 8(27): 1119-1127 Help Desk: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/helpdesk.aspx ISSN 1948-5182 (online) DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v8.i27.1119 © 2016 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. REVIEW Molecular pathological epidemiology in diabetes mellitus and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma Chun Gao Chun Gao, Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan logy and epidemiology, and investigates the relationship Friendship Hospital, Ministry of Health, Beijing 100029, China between exogenous and endogenous exposure factors, tumor molecular signatures, and tumor initiation, progres- Author contributions: Gao C conceived the topic, performed sion, and response to treatment. Molecular epidemiology research, retrieved concerned literatures and wrote the paper. broadly encompasses MPE and conventional-type mole- cular epidemiology. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) Supported by Beijing NOVA Programme of Beijing Municipal is the third most common cause of cancer-associated Science and Technology Commission, No. Z13110.7000413067. death worldwide and remains as a major public health Conflict-of-interest statement: No conflict of interest. challenge. Over the past few decades, a number of epidemiological studies have demonstrated that diabetes Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was mellitus (DM) is an established independent risk factor selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external for HCC. However, how DM affects the occurrence and
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Epidemiology
    66221_CH01_5398.qxd 6/19/09 11:16 AM Page 1 © Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION CHAPTER 1 Foundations of Epidemiology OBJECTIVES After completing this chapter, you will be able to: ■ Define epidemiology. ■ Define descriptive epidemiology. ■ Define analytic epidemiology. ■ Identify some activities performed in epidemiology. ■ Explain the role of epidemiology in public health practice and individual decision making. ■ Define epidemic, endemic, and pandemic. ■ Describe common source, propagated, and mixed epidemics. ■ Describe why a standard case definition and adequate levels of reporting are important in epidemiologic investigations. ■ Describe the epidemiology triangle for infectious disease. ■ Describe the advanced epidemiology triangle for chronic diseases and behavioral disorders. ■ Define the three levels of prevention used in public health and epidemiology. ■ Understand the basic vocabulary used in epidemiology. 66221_CH01_5398.qxd 6/19/09 11:16 AM Page 2 © Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ■ Foundations of Epidemiology In recent years, the important role of epidemiology has become increasingly recognized. Epidemiology is a core subject required in public health and health education programs; it is a study that provides information about public health problems and the causes of those problems. This information is then used to improve the health and social conditions of people. Epidemiology has a population focus in that epidemiologic investigations are concerned with the collective health of the people in a community or population under study. In contrast, a clinician is concerned for the health of an individual. The clinician focuses on treating and caring for the patient, whereas the epidemiologist focuses on iden- tifying the source or exposure of disease, disability or death, the number of persons exposed, and the potential for further spread.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Pathological Epidemiology Gives Clues to Paradoxical Findings
    Molecular Pathological Epidemiology Gives Clues to Paradoxical Findings The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Nishihara, Reiko, Tyler J. VanderWeele, Kenji Shibuya, Murray A. Mittleman, Molin Wang, Alison E. Field, Edward Giovannucci, Paul Lochhead, and Shuji Ogino. 2015. “Molecular Pathological Epidemiology Gives Clues to Paradoxical Findings.” European Journal of Epidemiology 30 (10): 1129–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10654-015-0088-4. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41392032 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptEur J Epidemiol Author Manuscript. Author Author Manuscript manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 07. Published in final edited form as: Eur J Epidemiol. 2015 October ; 30(10): 1129–1135. doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0088-4. Molecular Pathological Epidemiology Gives Clues to Paradoxical Findings Reiko Nishiharaa,b,c, Tyler J. VanderWeeled,e, Kenji Shibuyac, Murray A. Mittlemand,f, Molin Wangd,e,g, Alison E. Fieldd,g,h,i, Edward Giovannuccia,d,g, Paul Lochheadi,j, and Shuji Oginob,d,k aDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02115 USA bDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02215 USA cDepartment of Global Health Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan dDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H.
    [Show full text]