+ - 0:00:00
Notes for current slide
Notes for next slide

Interaction

What If: Chapter 5

Elena Dudukina

2020-12-08

1 / 15

Definition of the interaction

  • The joint intervention of two or more treatments
  • A: heart transplant
  • E: vitamins
  • 4 treatment combinations: Ya=0,e=0,Ya=1,e=0,Ya=0,e=1,Ya=1,e=1
  • Effect measured on the absolute scale: interaction on the additive scale Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
  • Example:
    • the causal risk difference for receiving the transplant when everyone gets vitamins Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]=0.1 and the causal risk difference for receiving the transplant when no one gets vitamins Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]=0.2
    • 0.1 0.2
    • there is an interaction on the additive scale between treatments A and E
    • same implied for the second exposure E: Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
    • both exposures have an equal status and require the same assumptions
    • in contrast to the effect measure modification, which deals with the causal effect of only one exposure and the causal contrast is defined in terms of the P.O. Ya, interaction deals with joint effect of several exposures and the causal contrast defined in terms of the P.O. Ya,e
2 / 15

Technical point 5.1

  • Working with the interaction equation:
    • Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1] -->
    • Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]+Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1] -->
    • substruct Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]:
    • Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]+Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
  • Multiplicative scale:
    • Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
3 / 15

Identifying interaction

  • Exchangeability, positivity, and consistency for both exposures
  • Imagine E was assigned marginally (unconditionally) at random Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1] under exchangeability becomes Pr[Ya=1=1|E=1]
    • For the full equation: Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
    • under exchangeability:
    • Pr[Ya=1=1|E=1]Pr[Ya=0=1|E=1]Pr[Ya=1=1|E=0]Pr[Ya=0=1|E=0]
  • When treatment E is randomly assigned, the interaction and effect modification coincide
4 / 15
  • A and E are joint inrervention --> combined treatment AE with four possible levels (11, 01, 10, 00)
  • Identification of the causal effect of one treatment AE
5 / 15

Counterfactual response types

Type Ya=0 Ya=1
Doomed 1 1
Helped 1 0
Hurt 0 1
Immune 0 0
6 / 15

Counterfactual response types

## # A tibble: 20 x 4
## greek Y_a0 Y_a1 type
## <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <chr>
## 1 Demeter 0 0 immune
## 2 Hades 0 0 immune
## 3 Hestia 0 0 immune
## 4 Hera 0 0 immune
## 5 Rheia 0 1 hurt
## 6 Zeus 0 1 hurt
## 7 Leto 0 1 hurt
## 8 Hephaestus 0 1 hurt
## 9 Aphrodite 0 1 hurt
## 10 Cyclope 0 1 hurt
## 11 Kronos 1 0 helped
## 12 Poseidon 1 0 helped
## 13 Apollo 1 0 helped
## 14 Hermes 1 0 helped
## 15 Hebe 1 0 helped
## 16 Dionysus 1 0 helped
## 17 Artemis 1 1 doomed
## 18 Ares 1 1 doomed
## 19 Athena 1 1 doomed
## 20 Persephone 1 1 doomed
7 / 15

Counterfactual response types

type Y_a=1, e=1 Y_a=0, e=1 Y_a=1, e=0 Y_a=0, e=0
1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 0
3 1 1 0 1
4 1 1 0 0
5 1 0 1 1
6 1 0 1 0
7 1 0 0 1
8 1 0 0 0
9 0 1 1 1
10 0 1 1 0
11 0 1 0 1
12 0 1 0 0
13 0 0 1 1
14 0 0 1 0
15 0 0 0 1
16 0 0 0 0
8 / 15

Counterfactual response types

  • Type 1 dies regardless of the treatments received
  • Type 16 is immune
    type Y_a=1, e=1 Y_a=0, e=1 Y_a=1, e=0 Y_a=0, e=0
    1 1 1 1 1
    16 0 0 0 0
9 / 15
  • Type 4 dies if treated with E regardless of A
  • Type 13 dies if NOT treated with E regardless of A
  • Type 6 dies if treated with A regardless of E
  • Type 11 dies if NOT treated with A regardless of E
type Y_a=1, e=1 Y_a=0, e=1 Y_a=1, e=0 Y_a=0, e=0
4 1 1 0 0
6 1 0 1 0
11 0 1 0 1
13 0 0 1 1
10 / 15

Counterfactual response types

  • The response types 1, 4, 6, 11, 1, 16: causal effect of A on Y is the same regardless of E and vice versa for the effect of E on Y regardless of A
  • If all individuals in the population have these response types, there is no interaction between A and E
    • Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]=Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
  • Interaction is present when there are individuals of:
  • Types 8, 12, 14, 15 (outcome under only one of the four treatment combinations)
type Y_a=1, e=1 Y_a=0, e=1 Y_a=1, e=0 Y_a=0, e=0
8 1 0 0 0
12 0 1 0 0
14 0 0 1 0
15 0 0 0 1
  • Types 7 and 10
    type Y_a=1, e=1 Y_a=0, e=1 Y_a=1, e=0 Y_a=0, e=0
    7 1 0 0 1
    10 0 1 1 0
11 / 15
  • Types 2, 3, 5, and 9 (outcome under 3 put of 4 combinations)
    type Y_a=1, e=1 Y_a=0, e=1 Y_a=1, e=0 Y_a=0, e=0
    2 1 1 1 0
    3 1 1 0 1
    5 1 0 1 1
    9 0 1 1 1
12 / 15

Monotonicity

  • The causal effects of A and E on Y are monotonic if every individual’s counterfactual outcomes Ya,e are monotonically increasing in both a and e (technical point 5.2)
    • There are no types Ya=1,e=1=0,Ya=0,e=1=1, etc.
13 / 15

Sufficient causes

  • Different responses types indicate that treatment A alone is not enough to always cause the outcome Y
  • Minimal sufficient causes are A=1 & U1=1 and A=0 & U2=1 and U0
  • Each sufficient cause has components --> sufficient-component causes
14 / 15

Sufficient causes

  • 9 possible sufficient causes with treatment components A = 1 only, A = 0 only, E = 1 only, E = 0 only, A = 1 and E = 1, A = 1 and E = 0, A = 0 and E = 1, A = 0 and E = 0, and neither A nor E matter.
15 / 15

Definition of the interaction

  • The joint intervention of two or more treatments
  • A: heart transplant
  • E: vitamins
  • 4 treatment combinations: Ya=0,e=0,Ya=1,e=0,Ya=0,e=1,Ya=1,e=1
  • Effect measured on the absolute scale: interaction on the additive scale Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
  • Example:
    • the causal risk difference for receiving the transplant when everyone gets vitamins Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]=0.1 and the causal risk difference for receiving the transplant when no one gets vitamins Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]=0.2
    • 0.1 0.2
    • there is an interaction on the additive scale between treatments A and E
    • same implied for the second exposure E: Pr[Ya=1,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=1,e=0=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=1=1]Pr[Ya=0,e=0=1]
    • both exposures have an equal status and require the same assumptions
    • in contrast to the effect measure modification, which deals with the causal effect of only one exposure and the causal contrast is defined in terms of the P.O. Ya, interaction deals with joint effect of several exposures and the causal contrast defined in terms of the P.O. Ya,e
2 / 15
Paused

Help

Keyboard shortcuts

, , Pg Up, k Go to previous slide
, , Pg Dn, Space, j Go to next slide
Home Go to first slide
End Go to last slide
Number + Return Go to specific slide
b / m / f Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode
c Clone slideshow
p Toggle presenter mode
t Restart the presentation timer
?, h Toggle this help
Esc Back to slideshow