MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393008884 · doi:10.1186/s12874-024-02156-y

An empirical evaluation of approximate and exact regression-based causal mediation approaches for a binary outcome and a continuous or a binary mediator for case-control study designs

2024· article· en· W4393008884 on OpenAlexafffund
Miguel Caubet, Kevin L’Espérance, Anita Koushik, Geneviève Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)EstimatorContext (archaeology)MediationLogistic regressionCausal inferenceStatisticsBinary numberRegression analysisParametric statisticsRegressionComputer scienceEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the causal mediation analysis framework, several parametric regression-based approaches have been introduced in past years for decomposing the total effect of an exposure on a binary outcome into a direct effect and an indirect effect through a target mediator. In this context, a well-known strategy involves specifying a logistic model for the outcome and invoking the rare outcome assumption (ROA) to simplify estimation. Recently, exact estimators for natural direct and indirect effects have been introduced to circumvent the challenges prompted by the ROA. As for the approximate approaches relying on the ROA, these exact approaches cannot be used as is on case-control data where the sampling mechanism depends on the outcome. METHODS: Considering a continuous or a binary mediator, we empirically compare the approximate and exact approaches using simulated data under various case-control scenarios. An illustration of these approaches on case-control data is provided, where the natural mediation effects of long-term use of oral contraceptives on ovarian cancer, with lifetime number of ovulatory cycles as the mediator, are estimated. RESULTS: In the simulations, we found few differences between the performances of the approximate and exact approaches when the outcome was rare, both marginally and conditionally on variables. However, the performance of the approximate approaches degraded as the prevalence of the outcome increased in at least one stratum of variables. Differences in behavior were also observed among the approximate approaches. In the data analysis, all studied approaches were in agreement with respect to the natural direct and indirect effects estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In the case where a violation of the ROA applies or is expected, approximate mediation approaches should be avoided or used with caution, and exact estimators favored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.266
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.559
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2660.559
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.875
GPT teacher head0.669
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207