ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Causal Approaches to Disease Progression Analyses.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidemiologic analyses that aim to quantify exposure effects on disease progression are not uncommon. Understanding the implications of these studies, however, is complicated, in part because different causal estimands could, at least in theory, be the target of such analyses. Here, to facilitate interpretation of these studies, we describe different settings in which causal questions related to disease progression can be asked, and consider possible estimands. For clarity, our discussion is structured around settings defined based on two factors: whether the disease occurrence is manipulable or not, and the type of outcome. We describe relevant causal structures and sets of response types, which consist of joint potential outcomes of disease occurrence and disease progression, and argue that settings where interventions to manipulate disease occurrence are not plausible are more common, and that, in this case, principal stratification might be an appropriate framework to conceptualize the analysis. Further, we suggest that the precise definition of the outcome of interest, in particular of what constitutes its permissible levels, might determine whether potential outcomes linked to disease progression are definable in different strata of the population. Our hope is that this paper will encourage additional methodological work on causal analysis of disease progression, as well as serve as a resource for future applied studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.