Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2507.03464

Causal interpretation of the sibling comparison and its relation to the cross-over design

Simon Bang Kristensen·Christian Bressen Pipper·Jacob von Bornemann Hjelmborg
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The intuitive motivation for employing a sibling comparison design is to adjust for confounding that is constant within families. Such confounding can be caused by variables that otherwise might prove difficult to measure, for example factors relating to genetics, environment, and upbringing. Recent methodological investigations have shown that despite its intuitive appeal, the conventionally employed analysis does not relate to a well-defined causal target, even in the case of constant confounding. A main challenge is that the analysis will target the subpopulation of exposure discordant pairs. In the presence of an effect of the cosibling's exposure on the sibling's outcome, there is a second challenge, namely that the effect corresponds to an intervention that always exposes the cosibling to the opposite exposure from the sibling. We characterise the sibling comparison in terms of the cross-over design. Estimands of interest are discussed before using this characterisation to establish more natural conditions for targeting an appropriate causal parameter. We cast the above-mentioned challenges of the sibling comparison in terms of those facing the cross-over trialist: in order to target an appropriate estimand one must be able to argue the absence of a certain type of carry-over effect as well as absence of trial-by-treatment interaction, thus establishing that the former study design emulates the latter warts and all. We explore weighting to counter the effects of such interactions and to target other estimands. The weights rely on estimates of the unobserved confounding structure. Through simulations and an example analysis, we illustrate its potential usefulness to assess the validity of the assumptions of the matched analysis. We briefly discuss an extension of the weighting procedure to remove selection bias based on data from a population-level reference sample.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Simon Bang Kristensen, Christian Bressen Pipper, Jacob von Bornemann Hjelmborg. 2025-07-04. Causal interpretation of the sibling comparison and its relation to the cross-over design. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03464

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗