To Impute or not to Impute? -- Missing Data in Treatment Effect Estimation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.02096v1
• Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 12:08:31 GMT
• Title: To Impute or not to Impute? -- Missing Data in Treatment Effect Estimation
• Authors: Jeroen Berrevoets, Fergus Imrie, Trent Kyono, James Jordon, Mihaela van der Schaar
• Abstract summary: We identify a new missingness mechanism, which we term mixed confounded missingness (MCM), where some missingness determines treatment selection and other missingness is determined by treatment selection. We show that naively imputing all data leads to poor performing treatment effects models, as the act of imputation effectively removes information necessary to provide unbiased estimates. Our solution is selective imputation, where we use insights from MCM to inform precisely which variables should be imputed and which should not.
• Score: 84.76186111434818
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Missing data is a systemic problem in practical scenarios that causes noise and bias when estimating treatment effects. This makes treatment effect estimation from data with missingness a particularly tricky endeavour. A key reason for this is that standard assumptions on missingness are rendered insufficient due to the presence of an additional variable, treatment, besides the individual and the outcome. Having a treatment variable introduces additional complexity with respect to why some variables are missing that is not fully explored by previous work. In our work we identify a new missingness mechanism, which we term mixed confounded missingness (MCM), where some missingness determines treatment selection and other missingness is determined by treatment selection. Given MCM, we show that naively imputing all data leads to poor performing treatment effects models, as the act of imputation effectively removes information necessary to provide unbiased estimates. However, no imputation at all also leads to biased estimates, as missingness determined by treatment divides the population in distinct subpopulations, where estimates across these populations will be biased. Our solution is selective imputation, where we use insights from MCM to inform precisely which variables should be imputed and which should not. We empirically demonstrate how various learners benefit from selective imputation compared to other solutions for missing data.

Related papers

• Quantifying Aleatoric Uncertainty of the Treatment Effect: A Novel Orthogonal Learner [72.20769640318969]
  Estimating causal quantities from observational data is crucial for understanding the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments. Medical practitioners require not only estimating averaged causal quantities, but also understanding the randomness of the treatment effect as a random variable. This randomness is referred to as aleatoric uncertainty and is necessary for understanding the probability of benefit from treatment or quantiles of the treatment effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:14:49Z)
• Improving Bias Correction Standards by Quantifying its Effects on Treatment Outcomes [54.18828236350544]
  Propensity score matching (PSM) addresses selection biases by selecting comparable populations for analysis. Different matching methods can produce significantly different Average Treatment Effects (ATE) for the same task, even when meeting all validation criteria. To address this issue, we introduce a novel metric, A2A, to reduce the number of valid matches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T12:42:24Z)
• Continuous Treatment Effects with Surrogate Outcomes [12.548638259932915]
  We study the role of surrogates in estimating continuous treatment effects. We propose a doubly robust method to efficiently incorporate surrogates in the analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T20:50:18Z)
• Improving Image-Based Precision Medicine with Uncertainty-Aware Causal Models [3.5770353345663053]
  We use Bayesian deep learning for estimating the posterior distribution over factual and counterfactual outcomes on several treatments. We train and evaluate this model to predict future new and enlarging T2 lesion counts on a large, multi-center dataset of MR brain images of patients with multiple sclerosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T20:08:40Z)
• Benchmarking Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Models through the Lens of Interpretability [82.29775890542967]
  Estimating personalized effects of treatments is a complex, yet pervasive problem. Recent developments in the machine learning literature on heterogeneous treatment effect estimation gave rise to many sophisticated, but opaque, tools. We use post-hoc feature importance methods to identify features that influence the model's predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-16T17:59:05Z)
• MissDAG: Causal Discovery in the Presence of Missing Data with Continuous Additive Noise Models [78.72682320019737]
  We develop a general method, which we call MissDAG, to perform causal discovery from data with incomplete observations. MissDAG maximizes the expected likelihood of the visible part of observations under the expectation-maximization framework. We demonstrate the flexibility of MissDAG for incorporating various causal discovery algorithms and its efficacy through extensive simulations and real data experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-27T09:59:46Z)
• Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference [58.442274475425144]
  Since the average treatment effect measures the change in social welfare, even if positive, there is a risk of negative effect on, say, some 10% of the population. In this paper we consider how to nonetheless assess this important risk measure, formalized as the conditional value at risk (CVaR) of the ITE distribution. Some bounds can also be interpreted as summarizing a complex CATE function into a single metric and are of interest independently of being a bound.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T17:21:26Z)
• BITES: Balanced Individual Treatment Effect for Survival data [0.0]
  Estimating the effects of interventions on patient outcome is one of the key aspects of personalized medicine. Time-to-event data is rarely used for treatment optimization. We suggest an approach named BITES, which combines a treatment-specific semi-parametric Cox loss with a treatment-balanced deep neural network.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-05T10:39:31Z)
• Non parametric estimation of causal populations in a counterfactual scenario [6.247939901619901]
  We propose an innovative approach where the problem is reformulated as a missing data model. The aim is to estimate the hidden distribution of emphcausal populations, defined as a function of treatment and outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-08T13:51:24Z)
• Estimating Average Treatment Effects via Orthogonal Regularization [18.586616164230566]
  Previous methods estimate outcomes based on unconfoundedness but neglect any constraints that unconfoundedness imposes on the outcomes. We propose a novel regularization framework for estimating average treatment effects that exploits unconfoundedness. We demonstrate that DONUT outperforms the state-of-the-art substantially.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-21T08:05:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.