PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2003Epidemiology824 citations

Quantifying Biases in Causal Models: Classical Confounding vs Collider-Stratification Bias

View Full Paper
SGSander Greenland

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

It has long been known that stratifying on variables affected by the study exposure can create selection bias. More recently it has been shown that stratifying on a variable that precedes exposure and disease can induce confounding, even if there is no confounding in the unstratified (crude) estimate. This paper examines the relative magnitudes of these biases under some simple causal models in which the stratification variable is graphically depicted as a collider (a variable directly affected by two or more other variables in the graph). The results suggest that bias from stratifying on variables affected by exposure and disease may often be comparable in size with bias from classical confounding (bias from failing to stratify on a common cause of exposure and disease), whereas other biases from collider stratification may tend to be much smaller.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sander Greenland (2003) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0966de0e219f8cdd3405aahttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000042804.12056.6c
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1An overview of relations among causal modelling methods2002 · 408 citations
  2. 2Data, Design, and Background Knowledge in Etiologic Inference2001 · 361 citations
  3. 3Components of a Difference Between Two Rates*1955 · 562 citations
  4. 4Causal diagrams for empirical research1995 · 2,355 citations
  5. 5ASSESSING EFFECTS OF CONFOUNDING VARIABLES1978 · 164 citations