Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 48 references

Identifying Key Influencers using an Egocentric Network-based Randomized Design

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Multiple Comparison with Best procedure applied to GEE estimates can identify the subgroup of index participants with the largest spillover effect in egocentric network randomized trials while controlling…

desk verdict Useful MCB extension for egocentric network trials, but Lemma 1's printed variance is wrong and the application misreads its own Table 3; fix before use. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10170 v1 pith:VFX3KJZS submitted 2025-02-14 stat.ME

Zhibing He , Junhan Fan , Ashley Buchanan , Donna Spiegelman , Laura Forastiere This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62H1562J1262P10
keywords causalinferenceinterferencespillovereffectsmultiplecomparisonswiththebestegocentricnetworkrandomizedtrialkeyinfluencersgeneralizedestimatingequations
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 aims to give researchers a confirmatory test for finding which kinds of people, when trained in a peer-education trial, most change the behavior of their social network members. In an egocentric network randomized trial, only index participants are randomized; their nominated network members stay untreated, so the paper defines the spillover effect of subgroup $h$ as the average difference in network-member outcomes between treated and untreated indices in that subgroup. The paper claims this effect is identified by a simple mean contrast (Theorem 1), estimable by GEE from a linear mixed model clustering by egonetwork, and that Multiple Comparison with Best (MCB) then produces simultaneous confidence intervals that single out the best subgroup(s) while controlling the family-wise error rate (Theorem 2). It also derives power and sample-size formulas so future ENRTs can be sized to detect key influencers, and illustrates the procedure on a peer HIV-prevention trial.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the heterogeneous spillover effect $\delta(h)$, the average effect of a treated index participant of subgroup $h$ on an untreated network member, identified as $E[Y_{ik}|Z_{1k}=1, X_{1k}=h, R_{ik}=0] - E[Y_{ik}|Z_{1k}=0, X_{1k}=h, R_{ik}=0]$ under non-overlapping egonetworks and neighborhood interference. This contrast is estimated through the linear mixed model $Y_{ik} = \sum_{h=1}^H \zeta_h S_{kh} + \sum_{h=1}^H \delta_h G_{ik} S_{kh} + u_k + \epsilon_{ik}$, with GEE and a working covariance that accounts for within-egonetwork correlation. The MCB machinery then builds simultaneous confidence intervals using subgroup-specific critical values $c_\alpha^h$ computed from a double-integral identity, and the power formula combines interval coverage with interval narrowness to size the trial.

What would settle it

Simulate an ENRT in which a small fraction of network members are linked to two index participants and outcomes depend on both indices' treatments; if MCB simultaneous coverage falls measurably below $1-\alpha$ or the estimated $\delta(h)$ shows bias growing with that fraction, the identifying assumptions are load-bearing and the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MCB, applied to the GEE estimator from model (3), identifies the subgroup(s) of index participants with the largest spillover effect on their network members while controlling the family-wise error rate. For each subgroup $h$, MCB tests whether $\delta_h$ is at least as large as the best of the other subgroups and builds simultaneous confidence intervals for $\delta_h - \max_{j \neq h} \delta_j$. Theorem 2 states that, as the number of egonetworks grows, these intervals cover all true differences with probability at least $1-\alpha$, and exactly $1-\alpha$ when the best subgroup is unique. The paper further claims that its power definition and sample-size calculations extend MCB to multiple best subgroups, and that in the STEP into Action HIV-prevention trial the method identifies the mid-age and college-educated subgroups as the key influencers.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes each network member is connected to exactly one index participant and that outcomes are affected only by a treated direct neighbor; if either fails, the estimated subgroup contrast is no longer a spillover effect from subgroup $h$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An ENRT can be pre-sized with the provided power formulas to have a chosen probability of detecting a specified difference between the best and second-best subgroups.
  • MCB outputs a confidence set of subgroups statistically indistinguishable from the best, so implementers can target a defensible set of peer educators rather than relying on a single point estimate.
  • Under the overall null of no heterogeneity, the probability that all subgroups enter the best set is at least $1-\alpha$, so false claims of a key influencer are controlled.
  • In the STEP into Action application, the method indicates that older and college-educated index participants have the largest beneficial spillover effects on HIV risk behavior, which would guide peer-educator selection.
  • Compared with the Wald heterogeneity test, MCB requires more egonetworks for the same power, but it answers the targeting question the Wald test leaves open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same MCB-on-GEE template could be carried to binary or count network-member outcomes through generalized estimating equations, with the critical-value computation updated accordingly.
  • Editorial extension: because subgroups are fixed before analysis from baseline covariates, the procedure is confirmatory and will not discover influencer types that were not pre-specified.
  • Editorial extension: a natural stress test would re-analyze data under a growing fraction of network members connected to more than one index participant; the coverage guarantee should degrade smoothly as that fraction grows, revealing how much validity depends on Assumption 1.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a confirmatory method for identifying subgroups of index participants whose treatment produces the largest spillover effect on their network members in an Egocentric Network-based Randomized Trial (ENRT). The authors define a subgroup-specific spillover estimand δ(h), identify it under assumptions of non-overlapping egonetworks and neighborhood interference, estimate it via a GEE fit to the linear mixed model in equation (3), and then apply a Multiple Comparisons with the Best (MCB) procedure to construct simultaneous confidence intervals, an overall p-value, and power and sample-size calculations. The proposal is illustrated with a simulation study and with an application to the STEP into Action HIV prevention study.

Significance. The research question is practically important, and the combination of an ENRT design with the MCB framework is a sensible contribution if the inferential machinery is correct. The paper would give applied researchers a multiple-comparisons-adjusted procedure for selecting key influencer subgroups and for planning such trials, and the extension of MCB to a non-equicorrelated covariance structure and to multiple best subgroups is useful. However, the central variance lemma contains algebraic errors as printed, and the simulation results do not appear consistent with the stated data-generating process. No code or supplementary material is provided, so the numerical claims cannot currently be audited. The contribution is therefore conditional on substantial correction and re-validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Lemma 1] The printed variance formula for \hat\delta_h is incorrect and this error propagates into the MCB confidence set, the critical values, and the power calculations. First, under the stated asymptotics (\sqrt K(\hat\theta-\theta)\to N(0,\Sigma)), Var(\hat\delta_h) must be O(1/K), but no K appears in the printed expression. Second, the inverse of the compound-symmetric working covariance V_k=\sigma^2[(1-\rho)I+\rho J] is aI+bJ with b=-\rho/[\sigma^2(1-\rho)(1+(n-1)\rho)], so the cluster-summary constant is n/[1+(n-1)\rho], not n/[(1-\rho)(1+n\rho)]. Third, the treatment assignment probability enters through p(1-p), not through p alone. With balanced networks, the correct expression is Var(\hat\delta_h)=\sigma^2[1+(n-1)\rho]/[n K p(1-p)g_h]. Because \hat\sigma\sqrt{v_{jh}} is used in the MCB set defined around equation (6), and because Lemma 2 and the power formulas in Section 5 build on v_{jh}, the entire downstream procedure is affected. The authors should restate Lemma 1 and re-derive all standard errors, critical values, and sample-size formulas from the corrected expression.
  2. [Section 6, Table 1] The simulation results in Table 1 are not consistent with the stated design. For K=5000, n=5, \sigma^2=5, \rho=0.8, p=0.5, and g_h=0.25, the corrected variance formula gives \mathrm{sd}(\hat\delta_h)\approx0.116. The printed Lemma 1 gives \mathrm{sd}\approx2 without inserting a 1/K factor and \mathrm{sd}\approx0.028 if a 1/K factor is simply inserted. The table reports StdE(eStdE)\approx0.052 for every \delta_h, which is roughly a factor of two smaller than the corrected value. This discrepancy suggests that either the data were not generated with the specified cluster-level variance \sigma_u^2=4, or the standard error calculation omits part of the 1/[K p(1-p)] factor. Because the simulation is the main evidence that the MCB procedure controls coverage at the nominal level, the simulation must be rerun and the reported standard errors, coverage rates, and power values must be reconciled with the corrected formulas. The authors should also make the simulation code available.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.1] The indexing is internally inconsistent: the egonetwork is defined with i=1,\ldots,n_k, model (3) is written for i=2,\ldots,n_k+1, and network members are later described as i>1. Please harmonize the notation throughout.
  2. [Section 4.2.1, Theorem 2] The theorem defines simultaneous intervals for \delta_h-\max_{j\ne h}\delta_j, but the second sentence of the statement writes the coverage event as \delta_h-\min_{j\ne h}\delta_j. This typo should be corrected.
  3. [Section 5.2, equation (9)] The displayed power integral has garbled limits ("Z\infty\infty" and "Z u^*0") and uses r(u) for the density of \hat\sigma/\sigma after Lemma 2 used \gamma(u). Please rewrite the power formula with consistent notation and correct integration limits.
  4. [Section 4.2, Lemma 2] The estimator \hat\sigma and its degrees of freedom \nu are used in the critical value calculation and the p-value formula, but they are never explicitly defined. The authors should state how \hat\sigma is computed from the GEE fit and what distribution is assumed for \nu\hat\sigma^2/\sigma^2.
  5. [Section 4.2.2, p-value formula] The final displayed integral for the overall p-value has mismatched parentheses, mixes the variables x and z, and contains an incomplete square-root expression. Please rederive and display this formula cleanly.
  6. [Supplementary material] The paper repeatedly refers to supplementary material S1 and S4 for proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 and for additional analyses, but no supplement was included with the manuscript. Please provide the supplementary file or move the proofs into the main text.
  7. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including "remina" in the abstract, "Casual Inference" in the keywords, "identifing" in the Introduction, and "stead" in Section 4.2. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the MCB derivation follows from explicitly stated identification assumptions and the external Hsu MCB framework; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. It defines the causal estimand δ(h) as a potential-outcome contrast, identifies it under Assumptions 1-3 as a difference in observed subgroup means (Theorem 1), sets up a GEE model whose parameter δ_h equals that contrast, and then applies the standard MCB framework of Hsu (1984, 1996) to simultaneous inference. Nothing in this chain is fitted to the target and then relabeled as a prediction: the GEE estimator, MCB critical values, confidence sets, p-values, and power calculations are derived from the model and the user-specified effect sizes, which is standard inferential practice rather than circular reasoning. The self-citations to Buchanan et al. (2018), Forastiere et al. (2021, 2022), Fang et al. (2023), and Chao et al. (2023) occur in background, literature review, or as references for standard interference assumptions, but the assumptions themselves are stated explicitly in the paper and are not justified solely by those citations. The simulation study generates data from the same model used for estimation, but this is an internal validation of the proposed procedure, not a circular prediction. Section 8 honestly notes that violations of the non-overlapping egonetworks or neighborhood interference assumptions would change the estimand, which is a substantive limitation rather than a circular step. The suspicious printed variance formula in Lemma 1 (apparently omitting a 1/K factor and using an ICC denominator of 1+nρ instead of 1+(n-1)ρ) is a correctness issue that would invalidate the stated standard errors and sample-size results, but an algebraic or typographical error is not circularity. No circular step could be identified in the paper's derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, forces, or conserved quantities. The causal assumptions are standard in the interference literature. The only user-chosen numbers are design inputs for power and sample size, not fitted parameters in the estimator itself. The central methodological machinery is a working mixed model plus an existing multiple comparison procedure.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed alternative effect sizes delta_h = User-specified
    The power and sample size formulas in Section 5.2 require the investigator to specify the true subgroup spillover effects. These are design inputs, not parameters estimated from data.
  • Variance components sigma^2 and rho = User-specified or estimated from data
    Lemma 1 and Section 5 treat residual variance and intraclass correlation as inputs. In the application they are estimated by the mixed model, but for planning they must be assumed.
  • Design inputs p and g_h = User-specified
    Treatment allocation probability and subgroup proportions appear in the variance and sample size formulas. They are chosen by design, not fitted to outcomes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: Non-overlapping egonetworks, meaning index participants are not connected and each network member is connected to at most one index participant.
    Section 2.2.1. Without this, spillover exposure may come from multiple index participants and the simple contrast in Theorem 1 would not identify a single subgroup's spillover effect.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Neighborhood interference, meaning a unit's outcome depends on treatment only through the unit and its network neighborhood.
    Section 2.2.2. This restricts the treatment vector to the immediate neighborhood and is needed to index potential outcomes by the single index participant's treatment.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: Randomization of the index participant's treatment, independent of potential outcomes given network member status.
    Section 2.2.3. Guaranteed by the trial design but formally required for the identification result in Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Consistency: the observed outcome equals the potential outcome under the observed treatment assignment.
    Section 2.2.2. Standard causal inference assumption linking potential outcomes to observed data.
  • domain assumption Normal errors for the residual and network random effect in model (3).
    Section 3.1. The MCB critical values use a multivariate t distribution and the asymptotic coverage claim in Theorem 2 depends on the distribution of the estimated variance.
  • standard math GEE regularity conditions and K tending to infinity.
    Section 3.2. Needed for the asymptotic normality of the GEE estimator and for the asymptotic simultaneous confidence intervals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Key Influencers using an Egocentric Network-based Randomized Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFX3KJZS

@misc{pith2026250210170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Key Influencers using an Egocentric Network-based Randomized Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFX3KJZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10170}
}
read the original abstract

Behavioral health interventions, such as trainings or incentives, are implemented in settings where individuals are interconnected, and the intervention assigned to some individuals may also affect others within their network. Evaluating such interventions requires assessing both the effect of the intervention on those who receive it and the spillover effect on those connected to the treated individuals. With behavioral interventions, spillover effects can be heterogeneous in that certain individuals, due to their social connectedness and individual characteristics, are more likely to respond to the intervention and influence their peers' behaviors. Targeting these individuals can enhance the effectiveness of interventions in the population. In this paper, we focus on an Egocentric Network-based Randomized Trial (ENRT) design, wherein a set of index participants is recruited from the population and randomly assigned to the treatment group, while concurrently collecting outcome data on their nominated network members, who remina untreated. In such design, spillover effects on network members may vary depending on the characteristics of the index participant. Here, we develop a testing method, the Multiple Comparison with Best (MCB), to identify subgroups of index participants whose treatment exhibits the largest spillover effect on their network members. Power and sample size calculations are then provided to design ENRTs that can detect key influencers. The proposed methods are demonstrated in a study on network-based peer HIV prevention education program, providing insights into strategies for selecting peer educators in peer education interventions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10170 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Minimum required number of egonetworks for the Wald test (left) and the MCB test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Minimum required number of egonetworks for the Wald test (left) and the MCB test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Buchanan, N

    Aroke, H., A. Buchanan, N. Katenka, F. W. Crawford, T. Lee, M. E. Halloran, and C. Latkin (2022). Evaluating the mediating role of recall of intervention knowledge in the relationship between a peer-driven intervention and hiv risk behaviors among people who inject drugs. AIDS and Behavior\/ , 1--13

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Artman, W. J., I. Nahum-Shani, T. Wu, J. R. Mckay, and A. Ertefaie (2020). Power analysis in a smart design: sample size estimation for determining the best embedded dynamic treatment regime. Biostatistics\/ 21\/ (3), 432--448

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Athey, S. and G. Imbens (2016). Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\/ 113\/ (27), 7353--7360

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Baird, S., J. A. Bohren, C. McIntosh, and B. Özler (2018). Optimal design of experiments in the presence of interference. Review of Economics and Statistics\/ 100 , 844--860

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bargagli-Stoffi, F. J., C. Tort \`u , and L. Forastiere (2020). Heterogeneous treatment and spillover effects under clustered network interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00707\/

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological)\/ 57\/ (1), 289--300

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Brookes, S. T., E. Whitely, M. Egger, G. D. Smith, P. A. Mulheran, and T. J. Peters (2004). Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses;: power and sample size for the interaction test. Journal of clinical epidemiology\/ 57\/ (3), 229--236

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Buchanan, A. L., S. H. Vermund, S. R. Friedman, and D. Spiegelman (2018). Assessing individual and disseminated effects in network-randomized studies. American journal of epidemiology\/ 187 , 2449--2459

    work page 2018

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Cai, Y., H. Hong, R. Shi, X. Ye, G. Xu, S. Li, and L. Shen (2008). Long-term follow-up study on peer-led school-based hiv/aids prevention among youths in shanghai. International journal of STD & AIDS\/ 19\/ (12), 848--850

    2008

  2. [10]

    Spiegelman, A

    Chao, A., D. Spiegelman, A. Buchanan, and L. Forastiere (2023). Estimation and inference for causal spillover effects in egocentric-network randomized trials in the presence of network membership misclassification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02151\/

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chao, Y.-C., Q. Tran, A. Tsodikov, and K. M. Kidwell (2022). Joint modeling and multiple comparisons with the best of data from a smart with survival outcomes. Biostatistics\/ 23\/ (1), 294--313

    2022

  4. [12]

    Sridhar, and V

    Chen, Y., S. Sridhar, and V. Mittal (2021). Treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized field experiments: A methodological comparison and public policy implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing\/ 40\/ (4), 457--462

    2021

  5. [13]

    Chipman, H. A., E. I. George, and R. E. McCulloch (2010). BART: Bayesian additive regression trees . The Annals of Applied Statistics\/ 4\/ (1), 266 -- 298

    2010

  6. [14]

    Cohen, S

    Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S. Aiken (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences . Routledge

    2013

  7. [15]

    Davey-Rothwell, M. A., K. Tobin, C. Yang, C. J. Sun, and C. A. Latkin (2011). Results of a randomized controlled trial of a peer mentor hiv/sti prevention intervention for women over an 18 month follow-up. AIDS and Behavior\/ 15 , 1654--1663

    2011

  8. [16]

    Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American statistical association\/ 56\/ (293), 52--64

    1961

  9. [17]

    Spiegelman, A

    Fang, J., D. Spiegelman, A. Buchanan, and L. Forastiere (2023). Design of egocentric network-based studies to estimate causal effects under interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00791\/

    2023

  10. [18]

    Forastiere, L., E. M. Airoldi, and F. Mealli (2020). Identification and estimation of treatment and interference effects in observational studies on networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ , 1--18

    2020

  11. [19]

    Forastiere, L., E. M. Airoldi, and F. Mealli (2021). Identification and estimation of treatment and interference effects in observational studies on networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 116\/ (534), 901--918

    2021

  12. [20]

    Mealli, A

    Forastiere, L., F. Mealli, A. Wu, and E. M. Airoldi (2022). Estimating causal effects under network interference with bayesian generalized propensity scores. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 23\/ (289), 1--61

    2022

  13. [21]

    Grunspan, D. Z., B. L. Wiggins, and S. M. Goodreau (2014). Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education\/ 13\/ (2), 167--178

    2014

  14. [22]

    Hsu, J. (1996). Multiple comparisons: theory and methods . CRC Press

    1996

  15. [23]

    Hsu, J. C. (1984). Constrained simultaneous confidence intervals for multiple comparisons with the best. The Annals of Statistics\/ , 1136--1144

    1984

  16. [24]

    Hu, A. (2023). Heterogeneous treatment effects analysis for social scientists: A review. Social Science Research\/ 109 , 102810

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hudgens, M. G. and M. E. Halloran (2008). Towards causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 103 , 832–842

    2008

  18. [26]

    Imai, and A

    Jiang, Z., K. Imai, and A. Malani (2023). Statistical inference and power analysis for direct and spillover effects in two-stage randomized experiments. Biometrics\/ 79\/ (3), 2370--2381

    2023

  19. [27]

    Amirkhanian, E

    Kelly, J., Y. Amirkhanian, E. Kabakchieva, S. Vassileva, B. Vassilev, T. Mcauliffe, W. DiFranceisco, R. Antonova, E. Petrova, R. Khoursine, and B. Dimitrov (2006). Prevention of hiv and sexually transmitted diseases in high risk social networks of young roma (gypsy) men in bul...

    2006

  20. [28]

    Khan, Y. A., E. Fan, and N. D. Ferguson (2021). Precision medicine and heterogeneity of treatment effect in therapies for ards. Chest\/ 160\/ (5), 1729--1738

    2021

  21. [29]

    Kim, K. (2016). A hybrid classification algorithm by subspace partitioning through semi-supervised decision tree. Pattern Recognition\/ 60 , 157--163

    2016

  22. [30]

    Lee, Y., A. L. Buchanan, E. L. Ogburn, S. R. Friedman, M. E. Halloran, N. V. Katenka, J. Wu, and G. K. Nikolopoulos (2023). Finding influential subjects in a network using a causal framework. Biometrics\/

    2023

  23. [31]

    Murnane, R. J. and J. B. Willett (2010). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research . Oxford University Press

    2010

  24. [32]

    Pearl, J. (2010). On the consistency rule in causal inference: axiom, definition, assumption, or theorem? Epidemiology\/ 21\/ (6), 872--875

    2010

  25. [33]

    Xiong, J

    Qu, Z., R. Xiong, J. Liu, and G. Imbens (2021). Efficient treatment effect estimation in observational studies under heterogeneous partial interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12420\/

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Robins, J. M., M. A. Hernan, and B. Brumback (2000). Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology\/ , 550--560

    2000

  27. [35]

    Rosenbaum, P. R. (2007). Interference between units in randomized experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 102 , 191--200

    2007

  28. [36]

    Rubin, B. D. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology\/ 66 , 688–701

    1974

  29. [37]

    Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 100\/ (469), 322--331

    2005

  30. [38]

    Sofrygin, O. and M. Laan (2016). Semi-parametric estimation and inference for the mean outcome of the single time-point intervention in a causally connected population. Journal of Causal Inference\/ 5

    2016

  31. [39]

    Sussman, D. L. and E. M. Airoldi (2017). Elements of estimation theory for causal effects in the presence of network interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03578\/

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Tchetgen, E. J. T. and T. J. VanderWeele (2012). On causal inference in the presence of interference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research\/ 21 , 55–75

    2012

  33. [41]

    Tobin, K. E., S. J. Kuramoto, M. A. Davey-Rothwell, and C. A. Latkin (2011). The step into action study: A peer-based, personal risk network-focused hiv prevention intervention with injection drug users in baltimore, maryland. Addiction\/ 106\/ (2), 366--375

    2011

  34. [42]

    Tukey, J. W. (1991). The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Statistical science\/ , 100--116

    1991

  35. [43]

    VanderWeele, T. J. (2009). Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology\/ 20\/ (6), 880--883

    2009

  36. [44]

    Wald, A. (1943). Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical society\/ 54\/ (3), 426--482

    1943

  37. [45]

    Yang, S., F. Li, M. A. Starks, A. F. Hernandez, R. J. Mentz, and K. R. Choudhury (2020). Sample size requirements for detecting treatment effect heterogeneity in cluster randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine\/ 39 , 4218--4237

    2020

  38. [46]

    Altenburger, and F

    Yuan, Y., K. Altenburger, and F. Kooti (2021). Causal network motifs: identifying heterogeneous spillover effects in a/b tests. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , pp.\ 3359--3370

    2021

  39. [47]

    L., K.-Y

    Zeger, S. L., K.-Y. Liang, and P. S. Albert (1988). Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics\/ , 1049--1060

    1988

  40. [48]

    Zhu, H. and B. Lu (2015). Multiple comparisons for survival data with propensity score adjustment. Computational statistics & data analysis\/ 86 , 42--51

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.