Which of the following assumptions are required for causal inference from observational studies?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: Which of the following assumptions are required for causal inference from observational studies?

Options:
a. Dose-response relationship
b. Well-defined exposure
c. Plausibility
d. All of the above

Option a: Dose-response relationship. While a dose-response pattern can strengthen causal inference by showing that greater exposure is associated with greater effect, it is not a universal requirement for establishing causality from observational data. Some causal questions may lack a clear or measurable dose-response, yet other evidence (such as temporality, consistency across analyses, or rigorous control of confounding) can still support causal interpretation. Therefore this is not an absolute requirement.

Option b: Well-defined exposure. This is a foundational practical assumption. If the exposure is clearly defined and measured reliably, it reduces misclassification bias and allows for appropriate comparison groups. A well-defined exposure enables correct attribution of observed outcomes to the exposure and supports the validity of causal inferences drawn from observational data. Hence, this is considered a necessary and central assumption in many causal inference frameworks.

Option c: Plausibility. Plausibility refers to a general alignment with existing biological or theoretical understanding. While it can bolster causal reasoning and help prioritize hypotheses (e.g., using Bradford Hill considerations), it is not a formal, mandatory assumption for causal inference in all observational analyses. Causal claims can be made on evidence that is internally consistent and methodologically sound even if the broader plausibility is debated or uncertain.

Option d: All of the above. If we determine that both a and c are not strictly required as formal assumptions in all observational causal inferences, then this composite option is not correct. The necessity of a well-defined exposure (option b) alone does not imply that dose-response and plausibility are mandatory in every case.

In summary, the most defensible necessity among the choices is the need for a well-defined exposure (option b), while dose-response (a) and plausibility (c) are supportive or context-dependent rather than universal requirements. This leads to the conclusion that selecting all of the above (option d) would be incorrect based on how these criteria are typically applied in observational causal inference.

EPI 201 Week 7 - Causal inference in observational studies & Sufficient component causes model

Which of the following assumptions are required for causal inference from observational studies?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which of the following is a structural reason why diabetes and heart disease would be associated in the DAG above?

In order to make causal inference in an observational study with confounding by sex, the investigator must adjust for sex in the analysis phase. This is necessary to satisfy the assumption of:

It is possible to verify the exchangeability assumption in observational studies.

How do mechanisms help solve the reference class problem, according to Clarke et al.?

位置5的问题 When it is impossible/irresponsible to run a randomized experiment, there is always an approach using observational data that will guarantee a bias-free estimate of the true treatment effect.TrueFalseDon't Know清除选择

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler