Efficient and robust methods for causally interpretable meta-analysis: transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a target population

Issa J. Dahabreh; Jon A. Steingrimsson; Lucia C. Petito; Miguel A. Hern\'an; Sarah E. Robertson

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Efficient and robust methods for causally interpretable meta-analysis: transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a target population

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Transporting causal inferences from several randomized trials to a target population is feasible with a doubly robust estimator that needs only covariate data from the target population.

desk verdict A useful transportability paper with correct identification results and a nice estimator, but Theorem 5's asymptotic normality proof has a real gap that needs fixing before the double-robustness claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09230 v5 pith:LKH73V5H submitted 2019-08-24 stat.ME stat.AP

Issa J. Dahabreh , Sarah E. Robertson , Lucia C. Petito , Miguel A. Hernán , Jon A. Steingrimsson This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62D0562G0562G20

keywords causallyinterpretablemeta-analysistransportabilitygeneralizabilityrandomizedtrialstargetpopulationdoublyrobustestimationpotentialoutcomesefficientinfluencefunction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper shows that when a set of identifiability conditions holds — consistency, within-trial exchangeability, positivity of treatment, exchangeability over trial participation, and positivity of participation — the potential outcome mean in a target population, $E[Y^a|R=0]$, is identifiable from a collection of randomized trials plus covariate-only data on the target population, via $\psi(a)=E[E[Y|X,R=1,A=a]|R=0]$. It introduces an augmented estimator $\hat{\psi}_{aug}(a)$ that combines outcome regression with inverse probability weighting of trial participation and treatment assignment. The estimator is doubly robust: it is consistent and asymptotically normal when at least one of two working models — the outcome model or the joint (participation, treatment) model — is correctly specified. The paper also weakens positivity and exchangeability conditions, so that a collection of trials with partially overlapping covariate supports can still transport inferences to a broader target population. This gives meta-analysis a well-defined causal target: a population chosen on policy grounds, not just the populations sampled by the completed trials.

What carries the argument

The central object is the efficient influence function of $\psi(a)$ under the nonparametric model for the observed data, which the paper derives to be $\Psi^1_{q0}(a) = \pi_{q0}^{-1}\{ I(R=1,A=a)(1-p(X))/(p(X)e_a(X))(Y-g_a(X)) + I(R=0)(g_a(X)-\psi_{q0}(a)) \}$. This object carries the argument by simultaneously suggesting the doubly robust estimator (its sample analogue), establishing asymptotic efficiency under the nonparametric model, and remaining efficient under useful semiparametric restrictions such as $Y\perp S|(X,R,A=a)$. The proof that the influence function lies in the tangent set (via Tsiatis 2007) is what converts the identification functional into an estimator with the double robustness property.

What would settle it

Using a study where the target population's treatment and outcomes are also observed, compare the transported estimate $\hat{\psi}_{aug}(a)$ with the benchmark estimate from the target population itself; a discrepancy would indicate violation of A4 or of the working models. A more direct check is to test the observable implication $Y \perp S | (X,R=1,A=a)$ from equation (4), for example with a nonparametric test of equality of conditional outcome distributions across trials within covariate-treatment strata; rejecting equality refutes the identifying conditions' testable consequences.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under conditions A1–A5, the target population's potential outcome mean under treatment $a$ is identified by the observed-data functional $\psi(a) = E[E[Y|X,R=1,A=a]|R=0]$, equivalently written as an inverse probability weighted expectation. The main estimator, $\hat{\psi}_{aug}(a)$, is the sample analogue of the efficient influence function of $\psi(a)$ and is almost surely consistent and asymptotically normal provided either the outcome model $g_a(X)=E[Y|X,R=1,A=a]$ or both the participation model $p(X)=Pr[R=1|X]$ and treatment model $e_a(X)=Pr[A=a|X,R=1]$ are correctly specified (Theorem 5). Under weaker conditions A4† and A5†, identification still holds through $\varphi(a)$, which only requires mean exchangeability over trials that actually cover each covariate pattern. The paper additionally shows that average treatment effects can be identified under exchangeability in measure even when the individual potential outcome means are not identified (Theorem 4).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is assumption A4: conditional on measured covariates, which trial (if any) a person joins is independent of their potential outcomes — in plain terms, there are no unmeasured effect modifiers that differ between the trials and the target population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Target-population potential outcome means and average treatment effects can be estimated from a collection of trials together with covariate-only target data.
The augmented estimator remains consistent and asymptotically normal if at least one of the two model sets is correct, so misspecification of the outcome model alone does not bias the target estimate.
Under the weaker positivity conditions A3* and A5*, identification does not require every treatment to appear in every trial nor every covariate pattern to be present in every trial.
Under overlap condition A5†, a collection of trials whose covariate supports jointly cover the target support can still identify the target effects, even if each trial alone is grossly non-overlapping.
Average treatment effects are identifiable under exchangeability in measure (A4‡), a weaker assumption that does not identify the separate potential outcome means.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One testable extension: use nonparametric regression to test the restriction $Y \perp S | (X,R=1,A=a)$ across the trials; failing to reject it would strengthen confidence in A4 before transporting.
A practical diagnostic suggested by the identification functional: assess overlap between the pooled trials and target population with a plot of $Pr[R=1|X]$; extreme weights signal that the estimator will be unstable and that A5† may be empirically close to violation.
If A4 is a concern, the estimator could be embedded in a sensitivity analysis that perturbs the outcome model or adds an unmeasured effect modifier; the paper does not develop this, but its influence-function framework makes the perturbation straightforward.
The same influence-function construction could be adapted to settings where the 'target population sample' is itself an observational cohort with treatment and outcome data, provided unconfoundedness holds within the target; the paper restricts itself to covariate-only external data.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The identification results here are solid, and the weaker-overlap Theorem 3 is genuinely useful. The augmented estimator in equation (10) is a natural and sensible addition over the earlier Dahabreh et al. functional. The HALT-C application is a nice touch and the simulations are mostly well done, even if they only scratch the surface of the double-robustness claim.

The soft spot is Theorem 5. The consistency proof is fine, but the asymptotic normality argument in Appendix E has a wrong remainder bound. The paper bounds the remainder by a product of squared L2 errors times sqrt(n). That is not what Cauchy-Schwarz gives. The actual terms are sqrt(n) times expectations of products like (p - phat)(g - ghat), so the bound should be a product of unsquared L2 norms. In the branch where phat converges to an incorrect limit and ghat is a root-n consistent estimator of the outcome model, the real remainder is O_P(1), not oP(1). That means the representation in (11) is not established under the stated double-robustness conditions. The estimator may still be asymptotically normal in that branch, but with an extra contribution from the estimated misspecified nuisance, and the paper does not provide that analysis.

The simulation study also has a gap: it mostly exercises the outcome-model-correct branch, with the treatment model misspecified, but does not directly test the branch where the outcome model is wrong and the participation/treatment models are correct. Since the theorem has two branches, the simulations should cover both.

The paper is also marked as a draft, the code link is a placeholder, and the writing has some rough edges. Those are minor by comparison. The identification theory (Theorems 1–4) is standard and appears correct, and the weaker positivity conditions are a real contribution.

Who is this for? Statisticians and epidemiologists working on causal evidence synthesis. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for a corrected asymptotic analysis of the doubly robust estimator, including the misspecified-nuisance branch, and for simulations that actually test both branches of the double robustness property.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops identification and semiparametric estimation methods for transporting causal inferences from a collection of randomized trials to a target population. Under consistency, conditional exchangeability, and positivity assumptions (A1–A5), the potential outcome mean E[Y^a|R=0] is identified by ψ(a)=E[E[Y|X,R=1,A=a]|R=0] (Theorem 1), with weaker variants in Theorems 2–4. The paper derives the efficient influence function for ψ(a) and proposes the augmented estimator ψ̂_aug(a) in equation (10). Theorem 5 claims ψ̂_aug(a) is almost surely consistent and asymptotically normal with remainder bound (12), provided either the outcome model or both the participation and treatment models are correctly specified. The paper includes simulation studies and an application to the HALT-C trial.

Significance. The identification framework is a valuable extension of single-trial transportability methods to multiple trials, and the proposed estimator is practically relevant because it requires only covariate data from the target population. The identification proofs (Appendices A–C) and the influence function derivation (Appendix D) are standard and appear correct, and the consistency proof of the augmented estimator is sound. The paper also provides useful testable implications of the identifying assumptions. However, the asymptotic-normality claim in Theorem 5 is not established as written because the remainder bound (12) is not justified; this affects the paper's central double-robustness claim. The simulation study, as currently designed, does not empirically exercise the misspecification branches of double robustness.

major comments (2)

[Appendix E / Theorem 5] The remainder bound in Eq. (12) does not follow from the proof. After expanding the term T, the expression is, up to bounded factors, √n E[(p−p̂)(ĝ−g)] + √n E[(e−ê)(ĝ−g)] + oP(1), where p = Pr[R=1|X], e = Pr[A=a|X,R=1], g = E[Y|X,R=1,A=a]. Cauchy–Schwarz gives √n(‖p−p̂‖₂‖ĝ−g‖₂ + ‖e−ê‖₂‖ĝ−g‖₂), not √n(‖p−p̂‖₂² + ‖e−ê‖₂²)‖ĝ−g‖₂². The displayed bound (12) is therefore not established. This is not a cosmetic issue: under assumption (iv)(b) (outcome model correct, participation and treatment models misspecified), if ĝ is root-n consistent and p̂ converges to a fixed incorrect limit, then ‖p−p̂‖₂ is bounded away from zero and the actual remainder after the √n scaling is O_P(1), so the asymptotic representation (11) fails. Under (iv)(a), a similar non-vanishing contribution arises from estimation of p and e when g is misspecified. Consequently, the paper's central claim of asymptotic normality under the stated double-robustness conditions is not proved. The consistency claim (part 1) is sound. The authors should either correct the expansion and impose explicit rate conditions (e.g., products of L2 errors equal to o_P(n^{-1/2})), or restrict the asymptotic-normality claim to cases where all relevant nuisance models are correctly specified, or use sample splitting / an adjusted influence function to account for nuisance estimation in the misspecification branches.
[Section 5] The simulation study does not exercise the double-robustness property under genuine misspecification. All fitted working models (outcome, participation, and treatment) are correctly specified under the data-generating process. The claimed “indirect verification” by setting p̂ ≡ 1 (g-formula) or ĝ ≡ 0 (weighting) amounts to degenerate special cases, not to fitting misspecified but non-degenerate models. To substantiate the double-robustness claim empirically, the authors should add simulation scenarios with (i) correct participation/treatment models and a misspecified outcome model, and (ii) a correct outcome model and misspecified participation/treatment models, reporting bias, variance, and coverage in each case.

minor comments (6)

[Title page] The manuscript is labeled “This DRAFT manuscript presents WORK IN PROGRESS” and invites comments on errors; this should be removed before resubmission.
[Appendix G] The code to reproduce the simulations is indicated as “will be available through this link: GitHub link,” but no actual URL or code is provided; a stable repository link is needed for reproducibility.
[Theorem 5] The notation in the remainder bound (Eq. 12) uses vertical bars for what are apparently L2 norms; the authors should write ‖·‖₂ to avoid ambiguity.
[Section 3.2] The density notation f(x,S=0) is ambiguous; use f_{X,S}(x,0) for clarity.
[Section 5.3 / Tables 1–2] The weighting estimator shows substantial finite-sample bias when the treatment assignment mechanism varies across trials; a brief explanation of this phenomenon (e.g., instability of inverse probability weights in small trial samples) would be helpful.
[Section 6.3] The HALT-C emulation is useful, but because the target “population” is one center from the same trial, the benchmark comparison may be optimistic; the authors acknowledge this, yet a brief discussion of the limits of this emulation would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: identification, influence function, and double-robustness proof are self-contained; self-citations are attributive only.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 identifies ψ(a) from conditions A1–A5 with the proof given in Appendix A, and Theorems 2–4 are also proved in the appendices; Theorem 4's citation of Dahabreh et al. (2020) is attribution, not load-bearing, because its proof is supplied in Appendix C. The augmented estimator in equation (10) is obtained from the efficient influence function computed in Appendix D for the same functional ψ(a), and Theorem 5's consistency proof in Appendix E proceeds by algebraically checking the two misspecification branches rather than assuming the target. The simulation study generates data under the same causal model used for identification, which is standard practice for evaluating estimators, not a case of fitting a parameter and renaming it a prediction; the HALT-C benchmark is an external reference, not an input to the transported estimators. The possible technical issue with the Cauchy-Schwarz bound in equation (12) is a mathematical correctness concern about the stated asymptotic representation, not a circularity: it does not make the claimed result equivalent to its own inputs. No step in the paper reduces by definition, by fitted-input renaming, or by an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard causal assumptions (consistency, exchangeability, positivity) and a sampling model for the target population. The estimator itself has no free parameters beyond the nuisance models, which are estimated from data. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Potential outcomes framework and consistency: if A_i=a then Y_i^a=Y_i (A1).
Standard causal inference framework; stated in Section 3.1.
domain assumption Conditional exchangeability over treatment in each trial: Y^a ⊥⊥ A | (X, S=s) (A2).
Plausible due to randomization; stated as Assumption A2.
domain assumption Conditional exchangeability over trial participation: Y^a ⊥⊥ S | X (A4).
The key untestable transport assumption; if unmeasured effect modifiers affect trial participation, identification fails.
domain assumption Positivity conditions A3, A5 (and weaker A3*, A5*).
Needed for the identifying functional to be well-defined; stated in Section 3.1 and 3.4.1.
domain assumption Sampling model: the target population sample is a simple random sample (or census) so q(x|r=0)=p(x|r=0).
Stated in Section 3.6; needed for the functional to be identifiable from biased sampling.
standard math Donsker class and boundedness assumptions (i)-(iii) in Theorem 5.
Regularity conditions for asymptotic normality of M-estimators; stated in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient and robust methods for causally interpretable meta-analysis: transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a target population." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKH73V5H

@misc{pith2026190809230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient and robust methods for causally interpretable meta-analysis: transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a target population},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKH73V5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09230}
}

read the original abstract

We present methods for causally interpretable meta-analyses that combine information from multiple randomized trials to estimate potential (counterfactual) outcome means and average treatment effects in a target population. We consider identifiability conditions, derive implications of the conditions for the law of the observed data, and obtain identification results for transporting causal inferences from a collection of independent randomized trials to a new target population in which experimental data may not be available. We propose an estimator for the potential (counterfactual) outcome mean in the target population under each treatment studied in the trials. The estimator uses covariate, treatment, and outcome data from the collection of trials, but only covariate data from the target population sample. We show that it is doubly robust, in the sense that it is consistent and asymptotically normal when at least one of the models it relies on is correctly specified. We study the finite sample properties of the estimator in simulation studies and demonstrate its implementation using data from a multi-center randomized trial.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models

Peter J Bickel, Chris AJ Klaassen, Jon A Wellner, and Ya'acov Ritov. Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models. Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, 1993

work page 1993
[2]

Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology

Maria Blettner, Willi Sauerbrei, Brigitte Schlehofer, Thomas Scheuchenpflug, and Christine Friedenreich. Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28 0 (1): 0 1--9, 1999

work page 1999
[3]

Weighted likelihood for semiparametric models and two-phase stratified samples, with application to C ox regression

Norman E Breslow and Jon A Wellner. Weighted likelihood for semiparametric models and two-phase stratified samples, with application to C ox regression. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 34 0 (1): 0 86--102, 2007

work page 2007
[4]

On the semi-parametric efficiency of logistic regression under case-control sampling

Norman E Breslow, James M Robins, Jon A Wellner, et al. On the semi-parametric efficiency of logistic regression under case-control sampling. Bernoulli, 6 0 (3): 0 447--455, 2000

work page 2000
[5]

Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters

Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal, 21 0 (1): 0 C1--C68, 2018

2018
[6]

Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the A C T G 320 trial

Stephen R Cole and Elizabeth A Stuart. Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the A C T G 320 trial. American J ournal of E pidemiology , 172 0 (1): 0 107--115, 2010

work page 2010
[7]

The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis

Harris Cooper, Larry V Hedges, and Jeffrey C Valentine. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation, 2009

work page 2009
[8]

Toward causally interpretable meta-analysis: Transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a new target population

IJ Dahabreh, LC Petito, SE Robertson, MA Hern \'a n, and JA Steingrimsson. Toward causally interpretable meta-analysis: Transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a new target population. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2020

work page 2020

Show all 41 references

[9]

Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a target population

Issa J Dahabreh and Miguel A Hern \'a n. Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a target population. European Journal of Epidemiology, pages 1--4, 2019

2019
[10]

Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial-eligible individuals

Issa J Dahabreh, Sarah E Robertson, Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen, Elizabeth A Stuart, and Miguel A Hern \'a n. Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial-eligible individuals. Biometrics, 75 0 (2): 0 685--694, 2018

2018
[11]

Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a new target population

Issa J Dahabreh, Sarah E Robertson, Jon A Steingrimsson, Elizabeth A Stuart, and Miguel A Hern \'a n. Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a new target population. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00550, 2019 a

2019 arXiv
[12]

Generalizing causal inferences from randomized trials: counterfactual and graphical identification

Issa J Dahabreh, James M Robins, Sebastien J-PA Haneuse, and Miguel A Hern\'an. Generalizing causal inferences from randomized trials: counterfactual and graphical identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10792, 2019 b

1906 arXiv
[13]

Conditional independence in statistical theory

A Philip Dawid. Conditional independence in statistical theory. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 41 0 (1): 0 1--15, 1979

1979
[14]

Testing the equality of nonparametric regression curves

Miguel A Delgado. Testing the equality of nonparametric regression curves. Statistics & Probability Letters, 17 0 (3): 0 199--204, 1993

1993
[15]

Prolonged therapy of advanced chronic hepatitis c with low-dose peginterferon

Adrian M Di Bisceglie, Mitchell L Shiffman, Gregory T Everson, Karen L Lindsay, James E Everhart, Elizabeth C Wright, William M Lee, Anna S Lok, Herbert L Bonkovsky, Timothy R Morgan, et al. Prolonged therapy of advanced chronic hepatitis c with low-dose peginterferon. New Eng...

2008
[16]

An introduction to the bootstrap, volume 57 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability

Bradley Efron and Robert J Tibshirani. An introduction to the bootstrap, volume 57 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1994

1994
[17]

A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis

Julian PT Higgins, Simon G Thompson, and David J Spiegelhalter. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 172 0 (1): 0 137--159, 2009

2009
[18]

Semiparametric causal inference in matched cohort studies

Edward H Kennedy, A Sj \"o lander, and DS Small. Semiparametric causal inference in matched cohort studies. Biometrika, 102 0 (3): 0 739--746, 2015

2015
[19]

Robust causal inference with continuous instruments using the local instrumental variable curve

Edward H Kennedy, Scott Lorch, and Dylan S Small. Robust causal inference with continuous instruments using the local instrumental variable curve. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 2019

2019
[20]

Introduction to empirical processes and semiparametric inference

Michael R Kosorok. Introduction to empirical processes and semiparametric inference. Springer, 2008

2008
[21]

An omnibus non-parametric test of equality in distribution for unknown functions

Alex Luedtke, Marco Carone, and Mark J van der Laan. An omnibus non-parametric test of equality in distribution for unknown functions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 81 0 (1): 0 75--99, 2019

2019
[22]

Choice of drug therapy in primary (essential) hypertension

Johannes FE Mann. Choice of drug therapy in primary (essential) hypertension. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/choice-of-drug-therapy-in-primary-essential-hypertension, 2020. Accessed: 03/13/2020

2020
[23]

Antihypertensive therapy and progression of nondiabetic chronic kidney disease in adults

Johannes FE Mann and George L Bakris. Antihypertensive therapy and progression of nondiabetic chronic kidney disease in adults. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/antihypertensive-therapy-and-progression-of-nondiabetic-chronic-kidney-disease-in-adults, 2019. Accessed: 03/13/2020

2019
[24]

Meta-analysis for medical decisions

Charles F Manski. Meta-analysis for medical decisions. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019

2019
[25]

Nonparametric comparison of regression curves: an empirical process approach

Natalie Neumeyer, Holger Dette, et al. Nonparametric comparison of regression curves: an empirical process approach. The Annals of Statistics, 31 0 (3): 0 880--920, 2003

2003
[26]

Essentials of probability theory for statisticians

Michael A Proschan and Pamela A Shaw. Essentials of probability theory for statisticians. CRC Press, 2018

2018
[27]

Testing the significance of categorical predictor variables in nonparametric regression models

Jeffery S Racine, Jeffrey Hart, and Qi Li. Testing the significance of categorical predictor variables in nonparametric regression models. Econometric Reviews, 25 0 (4): 0 523--544, 2006

2006
[28]

A re-evaluation of fixed effect (s) meta-analysis

Kenneth Rice, Julian Higgins, and Thomas Lumley. A re-evaluation of fixed effect (s) meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 181 0 (1): 0 205--227, 2018

2018
[29]

Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals

James Robins, Lingling Li, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Aad van der Vaart. Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals. In Probability and statistics: essays in honor of David A. Freedman, pages 335--421. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2008

2008
[30]

Causal inference without counterfactuals: comment

James M Robins and Sander Greenland. Causal inference without counterfactuals: comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95 0 (450): 0 431--435, 2000

2000
[31]

Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies

Donald B Rubin. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of E ducational P sychology , 66 0 (5): 0 688, 1974

1974
[32]

Robust estimation of encouragement design intervention effects transported across sites

Kara E Rudolph and Mark J van der Laan. Robust estimation of encouragement design intervention effects transported across sites. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), 79 0 (5): 0 1509--1525, 2017

2017
[33]

Weighted likelihood estimation under two-phase sampling

Takumi Saegusa and Jon A Wellner. Weighted likelihood estimation under two-phase sampling. Annals of Statistics, 41 0 (1): 0 269, 2013

2013
[34]

Causal inference for meta-analysis and multi-level data structures, with application to randomized studies of V ioxx

Michael Sobel, David Madigan, and Wei Wang. Causal inference for meta-analysis and multi-level data structures, with application to randomized studies of V ioxx. Psychometrika, 82 0 (2): 0 459--474, 2017

2017
[35]

The calculus of m-estimation

Leonard A Stefanski and Dennis D Boos. The calculus of m-estimation. The American Statistician, 56 0 (1): 0 29--38, 2002

2002
[36]

Improving generalizations from experiments using propensity score subclassification assumptions, properties, and contexts

Elizabeth Tipton. Improving generalizations from experiments using propensity score subclassification assumptions, properties, and contexts. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38 0 (3): 0 239--266, 2012

2012
[37]

Semiparametric theory and missing data

Anastasios Tsiatis. Semiparametric theory and missing data. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

2007
[38]

Asymptotic statistics, volume 3

Aad W Van der Vaart. Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge University Press, 2000

2000
[39]

Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes

Aad W van der Vaart and Jon A Wellner. Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. Springer, 1996

1996
[40]

Rethinking meta-analysis: assessing case-mix heterogeneity when combining treatment effects across patient populations

Tat-Thang Vo, Raphael Porcher, Anna Chaimani, and Stijn Vansteelandt. Rethinking meta-analysis: assessing case-mix heterogeneity when combining treatment effects across patient populations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10613, 2019

1908 arXiv
[41]

Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights

Daniel Westreich, Jessie K Edwards, Catherine R Lesko, Elizabeth Stuart, and Stephen R Cole. Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186 0 (8): 0 1010--1014, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models

Peter J Bickel, Chris AJ Klaassen, Jon A Wellner, and Ya'acov Ritov. Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models. Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, 1993

work page 1993

[2] [2]

Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology

Maria Blettner, Willi Sauerbrei, Brigitte Schlehofer, Thomas Scheuchenpflug, and Christine Friedenreich. Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28 0 (1): 0 1--9, 1999

work page 1999

[3] [3]

Weighted likelihood for semiparametric models and two-phase stratified samples, with application to C ox regression

Norman E Breslow and Jon A Wellner. Weighted likelihood for semiparametric models and two-phase stratified samples, with application to C ox regression. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 34 0 (1): 0 86--102, 2007

work page 2007

[4] [4]

On the semi-parametric efficiency of logistic regression under case-control sampling

Norman E Breslow, James M Robins, Jon A Wellner, et al. On the semi-parametric efficiency of logistic regression under case-control sampling. Bernoulli, 6 0 (3): 0 447--455, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [5]

Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters

Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. The Econometrics Journal, 21 0 (1): 0 C1--C68, 2018

2018

[6] [6]

Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the A C T G 320 trial

Stephen R Cole and Elizabeth A Stuart. Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the A C T G 320 trial. American J ournal of E pidemiology , 172 0 (1): 0 107--115, 2010

work page 2010

[7] [7]

The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis

Harris Cooper, Larry V Hedges, and Jeffrey C Valentine. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation, 2009

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Toward causally interpretable meta-analysis: Transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a new target population

IJ Dahabreh, LC Petito, SE Robertson, MA Hern \'a n, and JA Steingrimsson. Toward causally interpretable meta-analysis: Transporting inferences from multiple randomized trials to a new target population. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2020

work page 2020