DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling and microsimulation modelling: a critical comparison of methods for causal inference

Abstract

The current paradigm for causal inference in epidemiology relies primarily on the evaluation of counterfactual contrasts via statistical regression models informed by graphical causal models (often in the form of directed acyclic graphs, or DAGs) and their underlying mathematical theory. However, there have been growing calls for supplementary methods, and one such method that has been proposed is agent-based modelling due to its potential for simulating counterfactuals. However, within the epidemiological literature, there currently exists a general lack of clarity regarding what exactly agent-based modelling is (and is not) and, importantly, how it differs from microsimulation modelling—perhaps its closest methodological comparator. We clarify this distinction by briefly reviewing the history of each method, which provides a context for their similarities and differences, and casts light on the types of research questions that they have evolved (and thus are well suited) to answering; we do the same for DAG-informed regression methods. The distinct historical evolutions of DAG-informed regression modelling, microsimulation modelling and agent-based modelling have given rise to distinct features of the methods themselves, and provide a foundation for critical comparison. Not only are the three methods well suited to addressing different types of causal questions, but, in doing so, they place differing levels of emphasis on fixed and random effects, and also tend to operate on different timescales and in different timeframes.

Assessing causality in epidemiology: revisiting Bradford Hill to incorporate developments in causal thinking

“…There is limited literature comparing the potential outcomes framework in SCC models and DAGs [4,5,11] and one study comparing BH viewpoints to GRADE [10]. While BH viewpoints have been revisited to critically reflect on the theory and application of each viewpoint [2,[16][17][18][19][20], we have not identified any attempts to compare it to DAGs and SCC models, with the former particularly important given the growing influence of DAGs in epidemiology [21].…”

The Science of Complex Systems Is Needed to Ameliorate the Impacts of COVID-19 on Mental Health

“…Unlike in infectious diseases research, systems modeling and simulation has not pervaded mental health research, nor does it underpin advice given to governments. Instead, an epistemological entrenchment primes us to identify and address individual risk factors across the behavioral, social, cultural, economic, environmental, and services spectrum, with little formal (or statistical) recognition of the complex interrelationships between them (22)(23)(24). This entrenchment has bound us to a path of linear thinking, and delayed actions, that lacks the agility required to be responsive to a rapidly changing world.…”

Complex systems models for causal inference in social epidemiology

“…Unit-level models include agent-based models (often called ‘ABMs’) and individual-level simulation models (also called microsimulation models). 14–16 The defining feature of these models is that each simulated unit represents a single individual in a (virtual) population, as opposed to a group of individuals as modelled in the group-level models. The chief benefit of simulating individuals rather than groups is the ability to track and include aspects of an individual’s personal history, location in space and time relative to other individuals, and interactions between individuals.…”