Andrea Rotnitzky
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Andrea Rotnitzky has a total of 19 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- James M. Robins
Harvard School of Public Health Cambridge 02115 MA USA
2 shared publications - Marco Carone
Department of Biostatistics University of Washington Seattle Washington USA
2 shared publications - Ana A. Weil
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
1 shared publication Anna Elias-Warren
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
1 shared publication- Avi Kenny
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University , Durham, NC
1 shared publication - Charles J. Wolock
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 June 2026
- Published by Institute of Mathematical Statistics in The Annals of Statistics
- Vol. 54 (3) , 1398-1424
Towards a unified theory for semiparametric data fusion with individual-level data
We consider inference about a finite-dimensional parameter integrating samples from independent sources. A recently developed theory considers scenarios where sources align with subsets of the conditional distributions of a single factorization of the joint target distribution. While this theory applies in many settings, it falls short in important data fusion problems, such as two-sample instrumental variable analysis, settings that integrate data from epidemiological studies with diverse designs, and studies with mismeasured variables supplemented by external validation studies. In this paper we derive a comprehensive theory that, in particular, covers these settings by allowing the integration of sources aligned with conditional distributions that do not correspond to a single factorization of the target distribution. We provide a universal characterization of the influence functions of regular and asymptotically linear estimators and the efficient influence function of a target parameter, irrespective of the parameter of interest or the statistical model for the target distribution, thus paving the way for a unified theory for machine-learning debiased, semiparametric efficient estimation.
- 1 June 2026
- Published by Institute of Mathematical Statistics in The Annals of Statistics
- Vol. 54 (3) , 1398-1424
Towards a unified theory for semiparametric data fusion with individual-level data
We consider inference about a finite-dimensional parameter integrating samples from independent sources. A recently developed theory considers scenarios where sources align with subsets of the conditional distributions of a single factorization of the joint target distribution. While this theory applies in many settings, it falls short in important data fusion problems, such as two-sample instrumental variable analysis, settings that integrate data from epidemiological studies with diverse designs, and studies with mismeasured variables supplemented by external validation studies. In this paper we derive a comprehensive theory that, in particular, covers these settings by allowing the integration of sources aligned with conditional distributions that do not correspond to a single factorization of the target distribution. We provide a universal characterization of the influence functions of regular and asymptotically linear estimators and the efficient influence function of a target parameter, irrespective of the parameter of interest or the statistical model for the target distribution, thus paving the way for a unified theory for machine-learning debiased, semiparametric efficient estimation.
- 5 June 2025
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Epidemiology
- Vol. 36 (5) , 650-659
Investigating Symptom Duration Using Current Status Data: A Case Study of Postacute COVID-19 Syndrome
Background: For infectious diseases, characterizing symptom duration is of clinical and public health importance. Symptom duration may be assessed by surveying infected individuals and querying symptom status at the time of survey response. For example, in a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing program at the University of Washington, participants were surveyed at least 28 days after testing positive and asked to report current symptom status. This study design yielded current status data: outcome measurements for each respondent consisted only of the time of survey response and a binary indicator of whether symptoms had resolved by that time. Such study design benefits from limited risk of recall bias, but analyzing the resulting data necessitates tailored statistical tools. Methods: We review methods for current status data and describe a novel application of modern nonparametric techniques to this setting. The proposed approach is valid under weaker assumptions compared with existing methods, allows the use of flexible machine learning tools, and handles potential survey nonresponse. Our method relies on the assumption that the survey response time is conditionally independent of symptom resolution time within strata of measured covariates, and we propose an approach to assess the sensitivity of results to deviations from conditional independence. Results: From the university study, we estimate that 19% of participants experienced ongoing symptoms 30 days after testing positive, decreasing to 7% at 90 days. We found the estimates to be more sensitive to violations of the conditional independence assumption at 30 days compared with 90 days. Female sex, fatigue during acute infection, and higher viral load were associated with slower symptom resolution. Conclusion: The proposed method and accompanying sensitivity analysis procedure provide tools for investigators faced with current status data.
- 5 June 2025
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Epidemiology
- Vol. 36 (5) , 650-659
Investigating Symptom Duration Using Current Status Data: A Case Study of Postacute COVID-19 Syndrome
Background: For infectious diseases, characterizing symptom duration is of clinical and public health importance. Symptom duration may be assessed by surveying infected individuals and querying symptom status at the time of survey response. For example, in a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing program at the University of Washington, participants were surveyed at least 28 days after testing positive and asked to report current symptom status. This study design yielded current status data: outcome measurements for each respondent consisted only of the time of survey response and a binary indicator of whether symptoms had resolved by that time. Such study design benefits from limited risk of recall bias, but analyzing the resulting data necessitates tailored statistical tools. Methods: We review methods for current status data and describe a novel application of modern nonparametric techniques to this setting. The proposed approach is valid under weaker assumptions compared with existing methods, allows the use of flexible machine learning tools, and handles potential survey nonresponse. Our method relies on the assumption that the survey response time is conditionally independent of symptom resolution time within strata of measured covariates, and we propose an approach to assess the sensitivity of results to deviations from conditional independence. Results: From the university study, we estimate that 19% of participants experienced ongoing symptoms 30 days after testing positive, decreasing to 7% at 90 days. We found the estimates to be more sensitive to violations of the conditional independence assumption at 30 days compared with 90 days. Female sex, fatigue during acute infection, and higher viral load were associated with slower symptom resolution. Conclusion: The proposed method and accompanying sensitivity analysis procedure provide tools for investigators faced with current status data.
- Open Access
Double-robust and efficient methods for estimating the causal effects of a binary treatment
We consider the problem of estimating the effects of a binary treatment on a continuous outcome of interest from observational data in the absence of confounding by unmeasured factors. We provide a new estimator of the population average treatment effect (ATE) based on the difference of novel double-robust (DR) estimators of the treatment-specific outcome means. We compare our new estimator with previously estimators both theoretically and via simulation. DR-difference estimators may have poor finite sample behavior when the estimated propensity scores in the treated and untreated do not overlap. We therefore propose an alternative approach, which can be used even in this unfavorable setting, based on locally efficient double-robust estimation of a semiparametric regression model for the modification on an additive scale of the magnitude of the treatment effect by the baseline covariates $X$. In contrast with existing methods, our approach simultaneously provides estimates of: i) the average treatment effect in the total study population, ii) the average treatment effect in the random subset of the population with overlapping estimated propensity scores, and iii) the treatment effect at each level of the baseline covariates $X$. When the covariate vector $X$ is high dimensional, one cannot be certain, owing to lack of power, that given models for the propensity score and for the regression of the outcome on treatment and $X$ used in constructing our DR estimators are nearly correct, even if they pass standard goodness of fit tests. Therefore to select among candidate models, we propose a novel approach to model selection that leverages the DR-nature of our treatment effect estimator and that outperforms cross-validation in a small simulation study.Open AccessDouble-robust and efficient methods for estimating the causal effects of a binary treatment
We consider the problem of estimating the effects of a binary treatment on a continuous outcome of interest from observational data in the absence of confounding by unmeasured factors. We provide a new estimator of the population average treatment effect (ATE) based on the difference of novel double-robust (DR) estimators of the treatment-specific outcome means. We compare our new estimator with previously estimators both theoretically and via simulation. DR-difference estimators may have poor finite sample behavior when the estimated propensity scores in the treated and untreated do not overlap. We therefore propose an alternative approach, which can be used even in this unfavorable setting, based on locally efficient double-robust estimation of a semiparametric regression model for the modification on an additive scale of the magnitude of the treatment effect by the baseline covariates $X$. In contrast with existing methods, our approach simultaneously provides estimates of: i) the average treatment effect in the total study population, ii) the average treatment effect in the random subset of the population with overlapping estimated propensity scores, and iii) the treatment effect at each level of the baseline covariates $X$. When the covariate vector $X$ is high dimensional, one cannot be certain, owing to lack of power, that given models for the propensity score and for the regression of the outcome on treatment and $X$ used in constructing our DR estimators are nearly correct, even if they pass standard goodness of fit tests. Therefore to select among candidate models, we propose a novel approach to model selection that leverages the DR-nature of our treatment effect estimator and that outperforms cross-validation in a small simulation study. - 1 October 2001
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Biometrika
- Vol. 88 (3) , 713-725
Estimation of the mean of a K-sample U-statistic with missing outcomes and auxiliaries
We propose estimators of the mean of a K‐sample U‐statistic when data on the outcomes of interest are missing in some sampled units and auxiliary variables are available in the entire sample. The proposed estimators exploit the information available in the auxiliaries without requiring assumptions about the joint distribution of the auxiliaries and outcomes. The properties of the proposed estimators are derived as a consequence of general results on efficient semiparametric estimation of the mean of a K‐sample U‐statistic with missing at random outcomes, observed auxiliary variables and known missingness probabilities. We illustrate the methods with the estimation of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve when the biomarker data are observed only in subsamples of the diseased and healthy subjects.
- 1 October 2001
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Biometrika
- Vol. 88 (3) , 713-725
Estimation of the mean of a K-sample U-statistic with missing outcomes and auxiliaries
We propose estimators of the mean of a K‐sample U‐statistic when data on the outcomes of interest are missing in some sampled units and auxiliary variables are available in the entire sample. The proposed estimators exploit the information available in the auxiliaries without requiring assumptions about the joint distribution of the auxiliaries and outcomes. The properties of the proposed estimators are derived as a consequence of general results on efficient semiparametric estimation of the mean of a K‐sample U‐statistic with missing at random outcomes, observed auxiliary variables and known missingness probabilities. We illustrate the methods with the estimation of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve when the biomarker data are observed only in subsamples of the diseased and healthy subjects.
- 1 December 1999
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Vol. 94 (448) , 1135-1146
Rejoinder
(1999). Rejoinder. Journal of the American Statistical Association: Vol. 94, No. 448, pp. 1135-1146.
- 1 December 1999
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Vol. 94 (448) , 1135-1146
Rejoinder
(1999). Rejoinder. Journal of the American Statistical Association: Vol. 94, No. 448, pp. 1135-1146.