4.5 Article

A novel causal mediation analysis approach for zero-inflated mediators

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 13, 页码 2061-2081

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.9689

关键词

causal inference; mediation; zero-inflated log-normal; zero-inflated mediator; zero-inflated negative binomial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mediation analyses are important for causal inference in biomedical research, but little attention has been paid to mediators with zero-inflated structures. We propose a novel mediation modeling approach that can decompose the total mediation effect into two components induced by zero-inflated structures. Extensive simulations and a real study demonstrate the superior performance of our approach compared to existing methods.
Mediation analyses play important roles in making causal inference in biomedical research to examine causal pathways that may be mediated by one or more intermediate variables (ie, mediators). Although mediation frameworks have been well established such as counterfactual-outcomes (ie, potential-outcomes) models and traditional linear mediation models, little effort has been devoted to dealing with mediators with zero-inflated structures due to challenges associated with excessive zeros. We develop a novel mediation modeling approach to address zero-inflated mediators containing true zeros and false zeros. The new approach can decompose the total mediation effect into two components induced by zero-inflated structures: the first component is attributable to the change in the mediator on its numerical scale which is a sum of two causal pathways and the second component is attributable only to its binary change from zero to a non-zero status. An extensive simulation study is conducted to assess the performance and it shows that the proposed approach outperforms existing standard causal mediation analysis approaches. We also showcase the application of the proposed approach to a real study in comparison with a standard causal mediation analysis approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据