On definition and interpretation of separable path-specific effects with multiple ordered mediators.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Yan-Lin Chen, Sheng-Hsuan Lin
{"title":"On definition and interpretation of separable path-specific effects with multiple ordered mediators.","authors":"Yan-Lin Chen, Sheng-Hsuan Lin","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Causal mediation analysis examines the mechanism by which exposure affects outcome via mediators. In contrast to single-mediator scenarios, the presence of multiple ordered mediators introduces complex pathways and corresponding path-specific effects, which are difficult to interpret due to the cross-world counterfactual definition. Path-specific effects also require convoluted and unverifiable assumptions for identification. This article proposes a framework of separable path-specific effects as an extension of the separable effect method to the case of multiple ordered mediators. Compared to the traditional approach, separable path-specific effects can be interpreted as the causal effects of several separated components on the outcome, facilitating a more intuitive understanding of underlying mechanisms. We elucidate the relationship between separable and traditional path-specific effects by demonstrating their equivalence under the individual-level isolation assumptions and identifying both effects under the finest fully randomized causally interpretable structured tree graph (FFRCISTG) model, which inherently makes individual-level isolation assumptions. Moreover, weakening the individual-level isolation assumptions to their population-level counterparts, separable path-specific effects remain identifiable under the FFRCISTG model. Under this causal model, the assumptions for identifying separable path-specific effects can be verified in future experiments, thereby addressing the problem of relying on unverifiable cross-world assumptions in the traditional method. We also discuss how this framework can detect violations of assumptions such as the presence of intermediate confounders and the misspecification of causal order among mediators. In summary, compared to the traditional path-specific effects method, the proposed separable method provides a more verifiable and interpretable approach for causal multiple mediation analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Causal mediation analysis examines the mechanism by which exposure affects outcome via mediators. In contrast to single-mediator scenarios, the presence of multiple ordered mediators introduces complex pathways and corresponding path-specific effects, which are difficult to interpret due to the cross-world counterfactual definition. Path-specific effects also require convoluted and unverifiable assumptions for identification. This article proposes a framework of separable path-specific effects as an extension of the separable effect method to the case of multiple ordered mediators. Compared to the traditional approach, separable path-specific effects can be interpreted as the causal effects of several separated components on the outcome, facilitating a more intuitive understanding of underlying mechanisms. We elucidate the relationship between separable and traditional path-specific effects by demonstrating their equivalence under the individual-level isolation assumptions and identifying both effects under the finest fully randomized causally interpretable structured tree graph (FFRCISTG) model, which inherently makes individual-level isolation assumptions. Moreover, weakening the individual-level isolation assumptions to their population-level counterparts, separable path-specific effects remain identifiable under the FFRCISTG model. Under this causal model, the assumptions for identifying separable path-specific effects can be verified in future experiments, thereby addressing the problem of relying on unverifiable cross-world assumptions in the traditional method. We also discuss how this framework can detect violations of assumptions such as the presence of intermediate confounders and the misspecification of causal order among mediators. In summary, compared to the traditional path-specific effects method, the proposed separable method provides a more verifiable and interpretable approach for causal multiple mediation analysis.

多有序介质可分离路径特异性效应的定义与解释。
因果中介分析考察了暴露通过中介影响结果的机制。与单一中介情景相比,多个有序中介的存在引入了复杂的路径和相应的路径特异性效应,由于跨世界反事实定义,这些效应难以解释。路径特异性效应还需要复杂且无法验证的假设来进行识别。本文提出了一个可分离路径特异性效应的框架,作为可分离效应方法在多有序介质情况下的扩展。与传统方法相比,可分离路径特异性效应可以被解释为几个分离成分对结果的因果效应,有助于更直观地理解潜在机制。我们通过在个体隔离假设下证明可分离效应和传统路径特定效应的等价性,并在最优完全随机因果可解释结构树图(ffrcisg)模型下识别这两种效应,阐明了可分离效应和传统路径特定效应之间的关系。此外,在FFRCISTG模型下,个体水平的隔离假设弱化到群体水平,可分离路径特异性效应仍然是可识别的。在这种因果模型下,识别可分离路径特异性效应的假设可以在未来的实验中得到验证,从而解决了传统方法依赖于不可验证的跨世界假设的问题。我们还讨论了该框架如何检测假设的违反,例如中间混杂因素的存在和中介之间因果顺序的错误说明。综上所述,与传统的路径特异性效应方法相比,本文提出的可分离方法为因果多重中介分析提供了一种更具可验证性和可解释性的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信