Estimating Moderated Causal Effects with Time-varying Treatments and Time-varying Moderators: Structural Nested Mean Models and Regression with Residuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals differ in how they respond to a particular treatment or exposure, and social scientists are often interested in understanding how treatment effects are moderated by observed characteristics of individuals. Effect moderation occurs when individual covariates dampen or amplify the effect of some exposure. This article focuses on estimating moderated causal effects in longitudinal settings where both the treatment and effect moderator vary over time. Effect moderation is typically examined using covariate by treatment interactions in regression analyses, but in the longitudinal setting, this approach may be problematic because time-varying moderators of future treatment may be affected by prior treatment-for example, moderators may also be mediators-and naively conditioning on an outcome of treatment in a conventional regression model can lead to bias. This article introduces to sociology moderated intermediate causal effects and the structural nested mean model for analyzing effect moderation in the longitudinal setting. It discusses problems with conventional regression and presents a new approach to estimation that avoids these problems (regression-with-residuals). The method is illustrated using longitudinal data from the PSID to examine whether the effects of time-varying exposures to poor neighborhoods on the risk of adolescent childbearing are moderated by time-varying family income.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".