Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects

Epidemiology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 540-551

  Vanderweele, Tyler J ^a  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DIET; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SODIUM INTAKE; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BRAIN; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; COGNITIVE DEFECT; COMPLICATION; DRUG EFFECTS; HUMAN; LEAD POISONING; ORGAN SIZE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BRAIN; COGNITION DISORDERS; HUMANS; LEAD POISONING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; ORGAN SIZE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 77953957904     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181df191c     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Judd CM, Kenny DA. Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Eval Rev. 1981;5:602-619.
2. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143-155.
3. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001:411-420.
4. Blakely T. Estimating direct and indirect effects\fallible in theory, but in the real world? Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:166-167.
5. Hafeman D. Opening the Black Box: A Reassessment of Mediation From a Counterfactual Perspective [dissertation]. New York: Columbia University; 2008.
6. VanderWeele TJ. Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology. 2009;20:880-883.
7. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Statistics and Its Interface (Special Issue on Mental Health and Social Behavioral Science). 2009;2:457-468.
8. Rubin DB. Direct and indirect effects via potential outcomes. Scand J Stat. 2004;31:161-170.
9. VanderWeele TJ. Simple relations between principal stratification and direct and indirect effects. Stat Probab Lett. 2008;78:2957-2962.
10. Gallop R, Small DS, Lin JY, Elliott MR, Joffe M, Ten Have TR. Mediation analysis with principal stratification. Stat Med. 2009;28: 1108-1130.
11. Sjölander A, Humphreys K, Vansteelandt S, Bellocco R, Palmgren J. Sensitivity analysis for principal stratum direct effects, with an application to a study of physical activity and coronary heart disease. Biometrics. 2009;65:514-520.
12. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173-1182.
13. Kaufman JS, MacLehose RF, Kaufman S. A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004;1:4.
14. VanderWeele TJ. Mediation and mechanism. Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24: 217-224.
15. Robins JM. Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In: Green P, Hjort NL, Richardson S, eds. Highly Structured Stochastic Systems. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:70-81.
16. Joffe M, Small D, Hsu CY. Defining and estimating intervention effects for groups that will develop an auxiliary outcome. Stat Sci. 2007;22: 74-97.
17. Hafeman DM, Schwartz S. Opening the black box: A motivation for the assessment of mediation. Intl J Epidemiol. 2009;38:838-845.
18. Peterson ML, Sinisi SE, van der Laan MJ. Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology. 2006;17:276-284.
19. Hafeman DM, VanderWeele TJ. Alternative assumptions for the identification of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. In press.
20. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Princeton Technical Report. Statistical Science. In press. Available at: http://imai.princeton.edu/research/files/ mediation.pdf.
21. VanderWeele TJ. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009;20:18-26.
22. Robins JM. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure period\application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model. 1986;7:1393-1512.
23. Robins JM. Addendum to a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure period\application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Comput Math Appl. 1987;14:923-945.
24. Hernán MA, Hernández-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615-625.
25. Hernández-Díaz S, Schisterman EF, Hernán MA. The birth weight "paradox" uncovered? Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:1115-1120.
26. VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Directed acyclic graphs, sufficient causes and the properties of conditioning on a common effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1096-1104.
27. Vansteelandt S. Estimating direct effects in cohort and case-control studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20:851-860.
28. Avin C, Shpitser I, Pearl J. Identifiability of path-specific effects. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers; 2005;357-363.
29. Geneletti S. Identifying direct and indirect effects in a non-counterfac-tual framework. J R Stat Soc Series B. 2008;69:199-216.
30. van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Direct effect models. Int J Biostat. 2008;4.Article 23.
31. MacKinnon DP. An Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
32. Robins JM. Testing and estimation of direct effects by reparameterizing directed acyclic graphs with structural nested models. In: Glymour C, Cooper GF, eds. Computation, Causation, and Discovery. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press; 1999:349-405.
33. Ten Have TR, Joffe MM, Lynch KG, Brown GK, Maisto SA, Beck AT. Causal mediation analyses with rank preserving models. Biometrics. 2007;63:926-934.
34. Robins JM. Association, causation, and marginal structural models. Synthese. 1999;121:151-179.
35. Goetgeluk S, Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Estimation of controlled direct effects. J R Stat Soc Series B. 2008;70:1049-1066.
36. Pearl J. Casual diagrams for empirical research (with discussion). Biometrika. 1995;82:669-710.
37. VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Minimal sufficient causation and directed acyclic graphs. Ann Stat. 2009;37:1437-1465.
38. VanderWeele TJ. Sensitivity analysis: distributional assumptions and confounding assumptions. Biometrics. 2008;64:645-649.
39. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Princeton Technical Report. Available at: http://imai.princeton. edu/research/files/BaronKenny.pdf.
40. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D, Yamamoto T. Causal Mediation Analysis in R. Princeton Technical Report. Available at: http://imai.princeton.edu/research/ files/mediationR.pdf.
41. Caffo B, Chen S, Stewart W, et al. Are brain volumes based on magnetic resonance imaging mediators of the associations of cumulative lead dose with cognitive function? Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:429-437.
42. Schwartz BS, Stewart WF, Bolla KI, et al. Past adult lead exposure is associated with longitudinal decline in cognitive function. Neurology. 2000;55:1144-1150.
43. Stewart WF, Schwartz BS, Davatzikos C, et al. Past adult lead exposure is linked to neurodegeneration measured by brain MRI. Neurology. 2006;66:1476-1484.
44. Wilcox AJ. On the importance\and the unimportance\of birthweight. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:1233-1241.
45. Whitcomb BW, Schisterman EF, Perkins NJ, Platt RW. Quantification of collider-stratification bias and the birthweight paradox. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009;23:394-402.
46. VanderWeele TJ. Direct and indirect effects for neighborhood-based clustered and longitudinal data. Sociol Methods Res. 2010;38:515-544.