Miguel Hernán Profile picture
Feb 25, 2020 5 tweets 7 min read Read on X
#Causalinference that talks the talk and walks the walk.

Claim: "Continuing #breastcancer screening past age 75 doesn't reduce 8-year breast cancer mortality."

Emulation of a #TargetTrial led by @xabieradrian with Medicare data
doi.org/10.7326/M18-11…

Let the discussion start. Image
@xabieradrian @AnnalsofIM @HarvardEpi @harvard_data @HarvardBiostats @HarvardChanSPH @CMSGov @CMSgovPress @MonganInstitute @MassGeneralNews 2)

Because there's so much talk about #causalinference around here.

Computer scientists, economists, statisticians... talk a lot about the merits of #DeepLearning, instrumental variables, or whatever their preferred methodology is.

Everybody: This is your chance to shine. Image
3)

No more toy examples. A real world question:

"At what age should #breastcancer screening stop?"

Need to compare the mortality of women under two dynamic screening strategies using a database of insurance claims with time-varying treatments and confounders.

How'd you do it? Image
4)

We specified a pragmatic #TargetTrial with sustained treatment strategies (dynamic screening strategies) and emulated it explicitly using #observational data from #Medicare.

We used cloning + censoring + #IPweighting to adjust for time-varying confounders.

And we concluded: Image
5)

Experts who are very active on Twitter:

Is our answer to this public health question wrong?

What could we have done better? Downplay #epidemiology principles and use more #AI or instrumental variables?

If so, please DO IT and let us know what you find.

Help us or shut up.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Miguel Hernán

Miguel Hernán Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @_MiguelHernan

Jun 19, 2023
1/
One day everyone will recognize #selectionbias due to a #collider and the world will be a better place.

This time observational studies found a higher risk of omicron reinfection after a 3rd dose of #COVID19 vaccine. As usual, alarms went off.

Can you see the obvious bias? Image
2/
Those who receive a booster and get infected are, on average, more susceptible to infection than those who don't receive a booster and get infected.

So no surprise than those who receive a booster and get infected are more likely to get reinfected.

Led by @susanamcorella...
3/
... we described the bias @bmj_latest with simulations + real data.

We show that a vaccine booster will be associated with higher reinfection risk even if the booster has no harmful effect.

Now the good news: Preventing this #selectionbias is easy...
bmj.com/content/381/bm…
Read 6 tweets
Apr 13, 2022
1/
Our findings on a fourth dose (2nd booster) of the Pfizer-BioNTech #COVID19 vaccine are now published.

Compared with 3 doses only, a fourth dose had 68% effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during the Omicron era in persons over 60 years of age.

Interestingly...
2/
... this is yet another example of the need for good #observational studies that emulate a #TargetTrial.

Would it be better to have a real randomized trial? Yes

Do we have a randomized trial? No

Will we have a randomized trial? Perhaps, but too late for a timely decision.
3/
Last year, observational evidence was also used to recommend a first vaccine booster.

Our and others' studies provided evidence on the booster's protection against hospitalization after infection with Delta:


Policy makers listened. Lives were saved...
Read 8 tweets
Dec 3, 2021
1/
We emulated a target trial of two #COVID19 mRNA vaccines in the largest healthcare system in the US.

Both vaccines were similarly effective, with Moderna slightly better than Pfizer-BioNTech.

But that isn't the most important conclusion of our study.

2/
Spring of 2020: #COVID19 vaccines are developed.

October 2020: Results from randomized trial are announced.
businesswire.com/news/home/2021…

~6 months from development to evaluation of effectiveness.

Utterly impressive. Unprecedented.

Kudos to the pharmaceutical industry.

Now...
3/
December 2020: Vaccines become available.

December 2021: Where are the big randomized trials for COMPARATIVE effectiveness?

1 year, still *crickets*

Billions of taxpayer dollars and we don’t get to know which vaccine is better and safer?

Not so impressive, pharma industry.
Read 6 tweets
Aug 25, 2021
1/
Vaccine safety: We compared excess adverse events after #COVID19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech) and after documented #SARSCoV2 infection.

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

Take-home message: Low excess risk of adverse events after vaccination, higher after infection.

Some thoughts👇
2/
Preferring #SARSCoV2 infection over vaccination has become even harder. (Remember: infection also increases the risk of severe disease/death)

This is a good illustration of how #randomized trials and #observational studies complement each other for better #causalinference...
3/
The original #randomized trial estimated vaccine effectiveness to prevent symptomatic infection, but was too small to quantify vaccine safety.

That's what #observational studies do.

Now a different sort of question: Why could we do this study in the first place?

2 reasons.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 18, 2021
1/

Many countries are vaccinating their elderly. Can we relax control measures now?

No.

Even with 50% of elderly vaccinated, uncontrolled #SARSCOV2 transmission may overrun the healthcare system.

We explain @AMJPublicHealth today, led by @_gmales
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJ…
2/

Data from Madrid, Spring 2020:

Critical care requirements peaked at 5 times the usual capacity.

Hospitals managed to increase ICU capacity by 3-fold.

Heroic but, sadly, insufficient.

The healthcare system collapsed. Not everybody who needed critical care received it.
3/

If 50% of the elderly had been vaccinated, critical care requirements still would have peaked at almost 4 times the usual capacity.

Greater than the ICU capacity of any country in the world.

Only a prolonged lockdown could return ICU requirements to normal.

One last thing:
Read 4 tweets
Mar 12, 2021
@ProfMattFox 1/
The odds ratio from a case-control study is an unbiased estimator of the

a. odds ratio in the underlying cohort when we sample controls among non-cases

b. rate ratio in the underlying cohort when we use with incidence density sampling

No rare outcome assumption required.
@ProfMattFox 2/
Because the odds ratio is approximately equal to the risk ratio when the outcome is rare, the odds ratio from a case-control study approximates the risk ratio in the underlying cohort when we sample controls among non-cases and the outcome is rare.

But...
@ProfMattFox 3/
... for an unbiased estimator of the risk ratio (regardless of the outcome being rare), we need a case-base design, not a classical case-control design.

Of course, all of the above only applies to time-fixed treatments or exposures.

As for the causal interpretation...
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(