比较逻辑和对数二项式模型对二元中介和罕见二元结果的因果中介分析:支持实践中中介结果交叉检查的证据

Mariia Samoilenko, L. Blais, Geneviève Lefebvre
{"title":"比较逻辑和对数二项式模型对二元中介和罕见二元结果的因果中介分析:支持实践中中介结果交叉检查的证据","authors":"Mariia Samoilenko, L. Blais, Geneviève Lefebvre","doi":"10.1353/OBS.2018.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:BackgroundIn the binary outcome framework to causal mediation, closed-form expressions introduced by Valeri and VanderWeele for the natural direct and indirect effect odds ratios (ORs) are established from a logistic outcome model by invoking several approximations that hold under the rare-disease assumption. Such ORs are expected to be close to corresponding effects on the risk ratio (RR) scale based on a log-binomial outcome model, however new insight indicates that this is not always verified. The objective was to report on mediation results from these two models when the incidence of the outcome was <10%.MethodsStandard (approximate) ORs and RRs were estimated using data on a cohort of asthmatic pregnant women from Québec (Canada) and their babies. Prematurity and low birthweight were the mediator and outcome variables, respectively, and two binary exposure variables were considered: treatment to inhaled corticosteroids and placental abruption. Exact closed-form effects expressed on the OR scale were also derived and estimated using a SAS code we provide. A study based on two simulation scenarios was subsequently devised to supplement on the substantive findings.ResultsMany approximate ORs and RRs estimated from our cohort analyses did not closely agree. Approximate ORs were systematically observed farther from RRs in comparison with exact ORs, possibly leading to different conclusions regarding the null hypothesis. Exact OR estimates were very close to RR estimates for exposure to inhaled corticosteroids, but less so for placental abruption. The approximate OR estimator was found to exhibit important bias and undercoverage in the simulation scenario which featured a strong mediator-outcome relationship.ConclusionsLogistic and log-binomial outcome models can yield dissimilar binary-binary mediation effects even if the outcome incidence is small marginally. Large discrepancies between approximate ORs and RRs may indicate invalid inference for these ORs. Exact OR estimates can be obtained for validation or to replace RRs if the log-binomial model exhibits convergence problems.","PeriodicalId":74335,"journal":{"name":"Observational studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/OBS.2018.0013","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing logistic and log-binomial models for causal mediation analyses of binary mediators and rare binary outcomes: evidence to support cross-checking of mediation results in practice\",\"authors\":\"Mariia Samoilenko, L. Blais, Geneviève Lefebvre\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/OBS.2018.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:BackgroundIn the binary outcome framework to causal mediation, closed-form expressions introduced by Valeri and VanderWeele for the natural direct and indirect effect odds ratios (ORs) are established from a logistic outcome model by invoking several approximations that hold under the rare-disease assumption. Such ORs are expected to be close to corresponding effects on the risk ratio (RR) scale based on a log-binomial outcome model, however new insight indicates that this is not always verified. The objective was to report on mediation results from these two models when the incidence of the outcome was <10%.MethodsStandard (approximate) ORs and RRs were estimated using data on a cohort of asthmatic pregnant women from Québec (Canada) and their babies. Prematurity and low birthweight were the mediator and outcome variables, respectively, and two binary exposure variables were considered: treatment to inhaled corticosteroids and placental abruption. Exact closed-form effects expressed on the OR scale were also derived and estimated using a SAS code we provide. A study based on two simulation scenarios was subsequently devised to supplement on the substantive findings.ResultsMany approximate ORs and RRs estimated from our cohort analyses did not closely agree. Approximate ORs were systematically observed farther from RRs in comparison with exact ORs, possibly leading to different conclusions regarding the null hypothesis. Exact OR estimates were very close to RR estimates for exposure to inhaled corticosteroids, but less so for placental abruption. The approximate OR estimator was found to exhibit important bias and undercoverage in the simulation scenario which featured a strong mediator-outcome relationship.ConclusionsLogistic and log-binomial outcome models can yield dissimilar binary-binary mediation effects even if the outcome incidence is small marginally. Large discrepancies between approximate ORs and RRs may indicate invalid inference for these ORs. Exact OR estimates can be obtained for validation or to replace RRs if the log-binomial model exhibits convergence problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Observational studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/OBS.2018.0013\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Observational studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/OBS.2018.0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Observational studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/OBS.2018.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

摘要:背景在因果中介的二元结果框架中,Valeri和VanderWeele通过引用罕见病假设下的几个近似值,从逻辑结果模型中建立了自然直接和间接效应比值比(OR)的闭式表达式。基于对数二项结果模型,这种OR预计将接近风险比(RR)量表的相应影响,但新的见解表明,这并不总是得到验证。目的是报告当结果发生率<10%时,这两个模型的中介结果。方法使用来自魁北克(加拿大)的哮喘孕妇及其婴儿的队列数据估计标准(近似)ORs和RR。早产和低出生体重分别是中介变量和结果变量,并考虑了两个二元暴露变量:吸入皮质类固醇治疗和胎盘早剥。使用我们提供的SAS代码,还推导和估计了在OR量表上表达的精确闭合形式效应。随后设计了一项基于两种模拟情景的研究,以补充实质性调查结果。结果我们的队列分析中估计的许多近似OR和RR并不完全一致。与精确的OR相比,系统地观察到近似的OR离RR更远,这可能导致关于零假设的不同结论。吸入皮质类固醇暴露的确切OR估计值与RR估计值非常接近,但胎盘早剥的OR估计值较低。近似OR估计量在模拟场景中表现出重要的偏差和欠平均,模拟场景具有较强的中介-结果关系。结论即使结果发生率很小,Logistic和对数二项结果模型也能产生不同的二元二元中介效应。近似OR和RR之间的较大差异可能表明对这些OR的推断无效。如果对数二项式模型存在收敛问题,则可以获得精确的OR估计值以进行验证或替换RR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing logistic and log-binomial models for causal mediation analyses of binary mediators and rare binary outcomes: evidence to support cross-checking of mediation results in practice
Abstract:BackgroundIn the binary outcome framework to causal mediation, closed-form expressions introduced by Valeri and VanderWeele for the natural direct and indirect effect odds ratios (ORs) are established from a logistic outcome model by invoking several approximations that hold under the rare-disease assumption. Such ORs are expected to be close to corresponding effects on the risk ratio (RR) scale based on a log-binomial outcome model, however new insight indicates that this is not always verified. The objective was to report on mediation results from these two models when the incidence of the outcome was <10%.MethodsStandard (approximate) ORs and RRs were estimated using data on a cohort of asthmatic pregnant women from Québec (Canada) and their babies. Prematurity and low birthweight were the mediator and outcome variables, respectively, and two binary exposure variables were considered: treatment to inhaled corticosteroids and placental abruption. Exact closed-form effects expressed on the OR scale were also derived and estimated using a SAS code we provide. A study based on two simulation scenarios was subsequently devised to supplement on the substantive findings.ResultsMany approximate ORs and RRs estimated from our cohort analyses did not closely agree. Approximate ORs were systematically observed farther from RRs in comparison with exact ORs, possibly leading to different conclusions regarding the null hypothesis. Exact OR estimates were very close to RR estimates for exposure to inhaled corticosteroids, but less so for placental abruption. The approximate OR estimator was found to exhibit important bias and undercoverage in the simulation scenario which featured a strong mediator-outcome relationship.ConclusionsLogistic and log-binomial outcome models can yield dissimilar binary-binary mediation effects even if the outcome incidence is small marginally. Large discrepancies between approximate ORs and RRs may indicate invalid inference for these ORs. Exact OR estimates can be obtained for validation or to replace RRs if the log-binomial model exhibits convergence problems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does matching introduce confounding or selection bias into the matched case-control design? Size-biased sensitivity analysis for matched pairs design to assess the impact of healthcare-associated infections A Software Tutorial for Matching in Clustered Observational Studies Using a difference-in-difference control trial to test an intervention aimed at increasing the take-up of a welfare payment in New Zealand Estimating Treatment Effect with Propensity Score Weighted Regression and Double Machine Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1