= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
IlyaShpitser comments on 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
this was a misleading comment, removed and replaced by this placeholder comment
How are exposures set in this study? What if the final outcome depends on an unobserved cause (health status maybe?), and that cause also influences an intermediate outcome that does determine the measurement of some exposure along the way (via doctor assigning the exposure based on it, maybe?)
Or am I misunderstanding the question? (This is entirely possible, I don't fully understand epi lingo, I just construct counterexamples via d-separation/d-connection in graphs directly).
Where are you taking this class, if you don't mind me asking?
this was an unhelpful comment, removed and replaced by this comment
Yes I understand, but somehow they are set (maybe by Nature?) The real question I was getting at is whether they were randomized at all, or pseudo-randomized somehow. I was guessing not, so you get time-varying confounding issues alluded to in my earlier post.
Well, if it's self-report you observe a proxy. I meant actually unobserved (e.g. we don't even ask them, but the variable is still there and relevant).
You are right, in this case, but should be careful about the definition of a confounder, see:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0564
Did you mean "confounding" rather than "confounder"? The difference is important (the former is much easier to define, it is just related to what is called conditional ignorability in epi, the latter is quite tricky).
No, that was enough information, thank you.