Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36513379›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2023

An exact regression-based approach for the estimation of natural direct and indirect effects with a binary outcome and a continuous mediator.

Mariia Samoilenko, Geneviève Lefebvre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mariia SamoilenkoDépartement de mathématiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Geneviève LefebvreDépartement de mathématiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7155-8218

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the causal mediation framework, a number of parametric regression-based approaches have been introduced in recent years for estimating natural direct and indirect effects for a binary outcome in an exact manner, without invoking simplifying assumptions based on the rareness or commonness of the outcome. However, most of these works have focused on a binary mediator. In this article, we aim at a continuous mediator and introduce an exact approach for the estimation of natural effects on the odds ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference scales. Our approach relies on logistic and linear models for the outcome and mediator, respectively, and uses numerical integration to calculate the nested counterfactual probabilities underlying the definition of natural effects. Formulas for the delta method standard errors for all effects estimators are provided. The performance of our proposed exact estimators was evaluated in simulation studies that featured scenarios with different levels of outcome rareness/commonness, including a marginally but not conditionally rare outcome scenario. Furthermore, we evaluated the merit of Firth's penalization to mitigate the bias in the logistic regression coefficients estimators for the smallest outcome prevalences and sample sizes investigated. Using a SAS macro provided, we implemented our approach to assess the effect of placental abruption on low birth weight mediated by gestational age. We found that our exact natural effects estimators worked properly in both simulated and real data applications.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPlacentaComputer SimulationFemaleHumansLinear ModelsLogistic ModelsPregnancybinary outcomecontinuous mediatorexact natural effects estimatorsoutcome rareness/commonnessregression-based causal mediation analysis

Identifiers

PMID36513379
PMCPMC10107148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.