MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407258044 · doi:10.1002/bimj.70035

Mediation Analysis With Exposure–Mediator Interaction and Covariate Measurement Error Under the Additive Hazards Model

2025· article· en· W4407258044 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCovariateMediationMediatorStatisticsEconometricsPsychologyMathematicsMedicineSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.283 · 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