The Simpson's paradox unraveled.

By Miguel A. Hern'an, D. Clayton, N. Keiding. 2011

218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Emergency Medicine

Judea Pearl

Citations in the corpus

For and Against Methodologies: Some Perspectives on Recent Causal and Statistical Inference Debates (2017, background): “…structure is needed for causal inference (e.g., causal models capture the key distinction between noncollapsibility and confounding, concepts which are traditionally confused in statistics under the heading of ‘‘Simpson’s paradox’’ (Greenland et al. 1999; Pearl 2009; Hernán et al. 2011)).”
Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors (2019, background): “is not observed, it can create a fictitious conditional dependence between these variables [24].”
UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Simpson ' s paradox in psychological science : a practical guide (2017, unknown): “…analyzed by mathematicians and statisticians (e.g., Blyth, 1972; Dawid, 1979; Pearl, 1999, 2000; Schield, 1999; Tu et al., 2008; Greenland, 2010; Hernán et al., 2011), its relevance for human inferences studied by psychologists (e.g., Schaller, 1992; Spellman, 1996a,b; Fiedler, 2000, 2008;…”
Standardization and Control for Confounding in Observational Studies: A Historical Perspective (2015, unknown): “en X. Note that these conditions may not be satisﬁed even in randomised studies—another of the paradoxes to which Simpson drew attention. For a more detailed discussion of Simpson’s paper see Hernan, Clayton and Keiding (2011). Cochran’s Analyses of the 2×2×K Table In his important paper on “methods”
Comment: Understanding Simpson’s Paradox (2014, background): “His example of the former involved a deck of cards, in which two independent face types become associated when partitioned according to a cleverly crafted rule (see Hernán, Clayton, and Keiding 2011).”