The Role of the Natural Course in Causal Analysis

The average causal effect compares counterfactual outcomes if everyone had been exposed versus if everyone had been unexposed, which can be an unrealistic contrast. Alternatively, we can target effects that compare counterfactual outcomes against the factual outcomes observed in the sample (i.e., we can compare against the natural course). Here, we demonstrate how the natural course can be estimated and used in causal analyses for model validation and effect estimation. Our example is an analysis assessing the impact of taking aspirin on pregnancy, 26 weeks after randomization, in the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction trial (United States, 2006-2012). To validate our models, we estimated the natural course using g-computation and then compared that against the observed incidence of pregnancy. We observed good agreement between the observed and model-based natural courses. We then estimated an effect that compared the natural course against the scenario in which participants assigned to aspirin always complied. If participants had always complied, there would have been 5.0 (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 7.8) more pregnancies per 100 women than was observed. It is good practice to estimate the natural course for model validation when using parametric models, but whether one should estimate a natural course contrast depends on the underlying research questions.

Automated summary

The average causal effect compares counterfactual outcomes with factual outcomes observed in a sample. This article demonstrates how the natural course can be estimated and used for model validation and effect estimation. The example analyzes the impact of taking aspirin on pregnancy, and shows good agreement between observed and model-based natural courses. The estimated effect suggests that if all participants complied with taking aspirin, there would have been significantly more pregnancies.