Mediation Analysis With Exposure–Mediator Interaction and Covariate Measurement Error Under the Additive Hazards Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal mediation analysis is a useful tool to examine how an exposure variable causally affects an outcome variable through an intermediate variable. In recent years, there is increasing research interest in mediation analysis with survival data. The existing literature usually requires accurate measurements of the mediator and the confounders, which is infeasible in many biomedical and social science studies. Ignoring measurement errors may lead to misleading inference results. Furthermore, the current identification results of causal effects under the additive hazards model are limited to the scenario with no exposure-mediator interaction, which can be unappealing in mediation analysis. In this paper, we derive the identification results of direct and indirect effects under the additive hazards model in the presence of exposure-mediator interaction. Furthermore, we propose a corrected approach to adjust for the impact of measurement error in the mediator and the confounders and obtain consistent estimations of the direct and indirect effects. The performance of the proposed method is studied in simulation studies and a real data study.
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 | 0.057 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".