Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2107.07967

Clarifying Selection Bias in Cluster Randomized Trials: Estimands and Estimation

Fan Li·Zizhong Tian·Jennifer Bobb·Georgia Papadogeorgou
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In cluster randomized trials, patients are typically recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and consequently systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met. Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive the analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias. When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the ATE on the overall population generally differs from the ATE on the recruited population. An intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both ATEs. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the ATE on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogenous between principal strata, and the ATE on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fan Li, Zizhong Tian, Jennifer Bobb, Georgia Papadogeorgou. 2021-10-04. Clarifying Selection Bias in Cluster Randomized Trials: Estimands and Estimation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07967

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗