Display options
Cite
Ding P, Vanderweele TJ. Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding. Biometrika. 2016;103(2):483-490doi: 10.1093/biomet/asw012.
Ding, P., & Vanderweele, T. J. (2016). Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding. Biometrika, 103(2), 483-490. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asw012
Ding, Peng, and Vanderweele, Tyler J. "Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding." Biometrika vol. 103,2 (2016): 483-490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asw012
Ding P, Vanderweele TJ. Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding. Biometrika. 2016 Jun;103(2):483-490. doi: 10.1093/biomet/asw012. Epub 2016 Apr 30. PMID: 27279672; PMCID: PMC4890130.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Biometrika. 2016 Jun;103(2):483-490. doi: 10.1093/biomet/asw012. Epub 2016 Apr 30.

Sharp sensitivity bounds for mediation under unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding.

Biometrika

Peng Ding, Tyler J Vanderweele

Affiliations

  1. Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A.
  2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A. , [email protected].

PMID: 27279672 PMCID: PMC4890130 DOI: 10.1093/biomet/asw012

Abstract

It is often of interest to decompose the total effect of an exposure into a component that acts on the outcome through some mediator and a component that acts independently through other pathways. Said another way, we are interested in the direct and indirect effects of the exposure on the outcome. Even if the exposure is randomly assigned, it is often infeasible to randomize the mediator, leaving the mediator-outcome confounding not fully controlled. We develop a sensitivity analysis technique that can bound the direct and indirect effects without parametric assumptions about the unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding.

Keywords: Bounding factor; Causal inference; Collider; Natural direct effect; Natural indirect effect

References

  1. Biometrics. 2013 Jun;69(2):310-7 - PubMed
  2. PLoS Genet. 2010 Aug 05;6(8):null - PubMed
  3. Stat Med. 1994 Jan 30;13(2):153-62 - PubMed
  4. Ann Stat. 2012 Jun;40(3):1816-1845 - PubMed
  5. Epidemiology. 2003 May;14(3):300-6 - PubMed
  6. Epidemiology. 1992 Mar;3(2):143-55 - PubMed
  7. Am J Epidemiol. 2012 May 15;175(10):1013-20 - PubMed
  8. Biometrics. 2012 Dec;68(4):1019-27 - PubMed
  9. Stat Med. 2009 Feb 15;28(4):558-71 - PubMed
  10. Epidemiology. 2010 Jul;21(4):540-51 - PubMed
  11. Epidemiology. 1999 Mar;10(2):167-70 - PubMed
  12. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82 - PubMed
  13. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Jan;22(1):173-203 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support