Assessing natural direct and indirect effects through multiple pathways

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 179, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 513-518

  Lange, Theis ^a   Rasmussen, Mette ^b   Thygesen, Lau Caspar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b NONE

Author keywords

causal inference; mediation; multiple mediators

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN; INSULIN;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; EPIDEMIOLOGY; RESEARCH WORK; SOFTWARE; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CAUSAL PATHWAY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; EXPOSURE; EXPOSURE VARIABLE; HUMAN; LIFESTYLE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SOCIOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; SURVIVAL TIME; CAUSALITY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AUSTRIA; VIENNA;

CAUSALITY; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS;

EID: 84893224979     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt270     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Hvidtfeldt U, Gunter M, Lange T, et al. Quantifying mediating effects of endogenous estrogen and insulin in the relation between obesity, alcohol consumption and breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(7):1203-1212.
2. Lange T, Hansen J. Direct and indirect effects in a survival context. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):575-581.
3. Baron R, Kenny D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182.
4. Cole S, Hernán M. Fallibility in estimating direct effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):163-165.
5. 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.
6. VanderWeele T, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Stat Interface. 2009; 2:457-468.
7. Pearl J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge, UnitedKingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
8. Robins J, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3(2):143-155.
9. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the ASA Joint Statistical Meetings. Alexandria, Virginia: American Statistical Association; 2007:411-420.
10. Petersen M, Sinisi S, van der Laan M. Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):276-284.
11. Hafeman D, Schwartz S. Opening the black box: a motivation for the assessment of mediation. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(3): 838-845.
12. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T, et al. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):51-71.
13. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309-334.
14. VanderWeele T. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009; 20(4):18-26.
15. VanderWeele T, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(12):1339-1348.
16. VanderWeele T. Causal mediation analysis with survival data. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):582-585.
17. Lange T, Vansteelandt S, Bekaert M. A simple unified approach for estimating natural direct and indirect effects. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(3):190-195.
18. Vansteelandt S, Bekaert M, Lange T. Imputation strategies for the estimation of natural direct and indirect effects. Epidemiologic Methods. 2012;1(1):131-158.
19. Tchetgen ET, Shpitser I. Semiparametric estimation of models for natural direct and indirect effects. Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working paper 129. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University; 2011. (http://www. bepress.com/harvardbiostat/paper129). (Accessed November 6, 2013).
20. Zheng W, van der Laan MJ. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation of natural direct effect. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working paper 288. Berkeley, CA: University of California; 2011. (http://www. bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper288). (Accessed November 6, 2013).
21. MacKinnon D. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2008.
22. 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 Kaufmann Publishers, Inc; 2005:357-363.
23. Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Gerster M, et al. Estimation of direct effects for survival data by using the Aalen additive hazards model. J R Stat Soc Series B. 2011;73(5):773-788.
24. Imai K, Tingley D, Yamamoto T. Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. J R Stat Soc Series A. 2013; 176(1):5-51.
25. Robins J, Hernán M, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000; 11(5):550-560.
26. Aalen O. A model for non-parametric regression analysis of counting processes. In: Klonecki W, Kozek A, Rosinski J, eds. Lecture Notes in Statistics-2: Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1980:1-25.
27. Martinussen T, Scheike T. Dynamic Regression Models for Survival Data. New York, NY: Springer; 2006.
28. Hong G. Ratio of mediator probability weighting for estimating natural direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Biometrics Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2007:2401-2415.
29. Taubman S, Robins J, Mittleman M, et al. Intervening on risk factors for coronary heart disease: an application of the parametric g-formula. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(6): 1599-1611.
30. Westreich D, Cole S, Young J, et al. The parametric g-formula to estimate the effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on incident AIDS or death. Stat Med. 2012;31(18): 2000-2009.