Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 172, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1339-1348

  VanderWeele, Tyler J ^a   Vansteelandt, Stijn ^a  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Case control studies; Causal inference; Decomposition; Dichotomous response; Epidemiologic methods; Interaction; Logistic regression; Odds ratio

Indexed keywords

DATA INTERPRETATION; DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; NUMERICAL METHOD; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING; SIZE EFFECT;

CASE CONTROL STUDY; MEDIATION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; RISK; SOCIOLOGY; ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CAUSALITY; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LOGISTIC MODELS; ODDS RATIO; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952117042     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq332     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3(2):143-155
2. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001: 411-420
3. Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. The protective effects of estrogen on the cardiovascular system. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(23): 1801-1811
4. Bush TL, Barrett-Connor E, Cowan LD, et al. Cardiovascular mortality and noncontraceptive use of estrogen in women: results from the Lipid Research Clinics Program Follow-up Study. Circulation. 1987;75(6):1102-1109
5. Rubin DB. Formal modes of statistical inference for causal effects. J Statist Plan Inf. 1990;25(3):279-292
6. Hernán MA. A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(4): 265-271
7. Pearl J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2009
8. VanderWeele TJ. Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology. 2009;20(6):880-883
9. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Stat Interface. 2009;2(4):457-468
10. 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, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003:70-81
11. Joffe M, Small D, Hsu CY. Defining and estimating intervention effects for groups that will develop an auxiliary outcome. Stat Sci. 2007;22(1):74-97
12. VanderWeele TJ. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1): 18-26
13. Judd CM, Kenny DA. Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Eval Rev. 1981;5(5):602-619
14. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):163-165
15. VanderWeele TJ. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2010;21(4):540-551
16. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Pyschol Methods. In press
17. Avin C, Shpitser I, Pearl J. Identifiability of path-specific effects. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman; 2005:357-363
18. Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):550-560
19. van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Direct effect models. In: International Journal of Biostatistics. Vol. 4, issue 1, article
20. 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/ Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1999:349-405
21. Ten Have TR, Joffe MM, Lynch KG, et al. Causal mediation analyses with rank preserving models. Biometrics. 2007;63(3): 926-934
22. Goetgeluk S, Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Estimation of controlled direct effects. J R Stat Soc B. 2008;70(5):1049-1066
23. Joffe MM, Greene T. Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics. 2009;65(2):530-538
24. Vansteelandt S. Estimating direct effects in cohort and casecontrol studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20(6):851-860
25. MacKinnon DP. An Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008
26. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6): 1173-1182
27. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992;11(2):167-178
28. Lin DY, Fleming TR, De Gruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med. 1997;16(13):1515-1527
29. Li Z, Meredith MP, Hoseyni MS. A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint. Stat Med. 2001;20(21):3175-3188
30. Chen C, Wang H, Snapinn SM. Proportion of treatment effect (PTE) explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med. 2003; 22(22):3449-3459
31. Wang Y, Taylor JM. A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics. 2002; 58(4):803-812
32. Taylor JM, Wang Y, Thiébaut R. Counterfactual links to the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics. 2005;61(4):1102-1111
33. Kaufman JS, MacLehose RF, Kaufman S. A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation [electronic article]. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004;1(1):4
34. Hafeman DM. Proportion explained: a causal interpretation for standard measures of indirect effect? Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(11):1443-1448
35. van der Laan MJ. Estimation based on case-control designs with known prevalence probability. In: International Journal of Biostatistics. Vol. 4, issue 1, article
36. Shenassa ED, Daskalakis C, Liebhaber A, et al. Dampness and mold in the home and depression: an examination of moldrelated illness and perceived control of one's home as possible depression pathways. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(10): 1893-1899
37. VanderWeele TJ. Mediation and mechanism. Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24(5):217-224
38. Dunn G, Bentall R. Modelling treatment-effect heterogeneity in randomized controlled trials of complex interventions (psychological treatments). Stat Med. 2007;26(26):4719-4745
39. Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci. 1999;14(1):29-46
40. Huang B, Sivaganesan S, Succop P, et al. Statistical assessment of mediational effects for logistic mediational models. Stat Med. 2004;23(17):2713-2728
41. Wacholder S, Chatterjee N, Caporaso N. Intermediacy and gene-environment interaction: the example of CHRNA5-A3 region, smoking, nicotine dependence, and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(21):1488-1491
42. Chanock SJ, Hunter DJ. Genomics: when the smoke clears. . . Nature. 2008;452(7187):537-538
43. Vansteelandt S, Goetgeluk S, Lutz S, et al. On the adjustment for covariates in genetic association analysis: a novel, simple principle to infer direct causal effects. Genet Epidemiol. 2009;33(5):394-405