Abstract
Mediation analysis is an important topic as it helps researchers to understand why an intervention works. Most previous mediation analyses define effects in the mean scale and require a binary or continuous outcome. Recently, possible ways to define direct and indirect effects for causal mediation analysis with survival outcome were proposed. However, these methods mainly rely on the assumption of sequential ignorability, which implies no unmeasured confounding. To handle the potential confounding between the mediator and the outcome, in this article, we proposed a structural additive hazard model for mediation analysis with failure time outcome and derived estimators for controlled direct effects and controlled mediator effects. Our methods allow time-varying effects. Simulations showed that our proposed estimator is consistent in the presence of unmeasured confounding while the traditional additive hazard regression ignoring unmeasured confounding produces biased results. We applied our method to the Women’s Health Initiative data to study whether the dietary intervention affects breast cancer risk through changing body weight.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson GL, Manson J, Wallace R, Lund B, Hall D, Davis S, Shumaker S, Wang CY, Stein E, Prentice RL (2003) Implementation of the women’s health initiative study design. Ann Epidemiol 13:5–17
Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182
Cai T, Gerds TA, Zheng Y, Chen J (2011) Robust prediction of t-year survival with data from multiple studies. Biometrics 67:436–444
Cleary MP, Grossmann ME (2009) Obesity and breast cancer: the estrogen connection. Endocrinology 150:2537–2542
Hernan MA, Cole SR (2009) Commentary causal diagrams and measurement bias. Am J Epidemiol 170:959–962
Howard BV, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Beresford SA, Frank G, Jones B, Rodabough RJ, Snetselaar L, Thomson C, Tinker L, Vitolins M, Prentice R (2006) Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7 years: the women’s health initiative dietary modification trial. J Am Med Assoc 295:39–49
Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D (2010a) A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods 15(4):309–334
Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T (2010b) Identification, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci 25:51–71
Lange T, Hansen JV (2011) Direct and indirect effects in a survival context. Epidemiology 22:575–581
Li J, Fine J, Brookhart A (2015) Instrumental variable additive hazards models. Biometrics 71:122–130
Lin DY, Ying Z (1994) Semiparametric analysis of the additive risk model. Biometrika 81:61–71
Lynch BM, Neilson HK, Fridenreich CM (2011) Physical activity and breast cancer prevention. Recent Results Cancer Res 186:13–42
MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS (2007) Mediation analysis. Annu Rev Psychol 58:593–614
Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Gerster M, Hjelmborg JB (2011) Estimation of direct effects for survival data by using the aalen additive hazards model. J R Stat Soc Ser B 73:773–788
Pearl J (2001) Direct and rindirect effects. Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty and artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco
Pearl J (2014) Interpretation and identification of causal mediation. Psychol Methods 19:459–481
Prentice RL (2010) Letter in response to ’preventing breast cancer in postmenopausal women by achievable diet modification: A missed opportunity in public health policy’ (dayal hh and kalia a). Breast 19:309–311
Prentice RL, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Patterson R, Kuller L, Ockene J, Margolis K, Limacher M, Manson J, Parker L, Paskett E, Phillips L, Robbins J, Rossouw J, Sarto G, Shikany J, Stefanick M, Thomson C, Van Horn L, Vitolins M, Wactawski-Wende J, Wallace R, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Whitlock E, Yano K, Adams-Campbell L, Anderson G, Assaf A, Beresford S, Black H, Brunner R, Brzyski R, Ford L, Gass M, Hays J, Heber D, Heiss G, Hendrix S, Hsia J, Hubbell F, Jackson R, Johnson K, Kotchen J, LaCroix A, Lane D, Langer R, Lasser N, Henderson M (2006) Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of invasive breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 295:629–642
Ritenbaugh C, Patterson R, Rea Chlebowski (2003) The women’s health initiative dietary modification trial: overview and baseline characteristics of participants. Ann Epidemiol 13:S87–S97
Robins JM, Greenland S (1992) Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3:143–155
Robins JM, Rotnitzky RA (1992) Recovery of information and adjustment for dependent censoring using surrogate markers. AIDS Epidemiology – Methodological Issues Boston, Birkhauser
Robins JM, Blevins D, Ritter G, Wulfsohn M (1992) G-estimation of the effect of prophylaxis therapy for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia on the survival of aids patients. Epidemiology 3:319–336
Rubin D (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomizd and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66(5):689
Small DS (2013) Mediation analysis without sequential ignorability: using baseline covariates interacted with random assignment as instrumental variables. J Stat Res 46:91–103
Tchetgen Tchetgen E (2011) On causal mediation analysis with a survival outcome. Int J Biostat 7:1–38
Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Walter S, Vansteelandt S, Martinussen T, Glymour M (2015) Instrumental variable estimation in a survival context. Epidemiology 26:402–410
Ten Have TR, Joffe MM, Lynch KG, Brown GK, Maisto SA, Beck AT (2007) Causal mediation analyses with rank preserving models. Biometrics 63(3):926–934
The Women’s Health Initiative Study Group (1998) Design of the women’s health initiative clinical trial and observational study. Contemp Clin Trials 19:61–109
VanderWeele TJ (2010) Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 21:540–551
VanderWeele TJ (2011) Causal mediation analysis with survival data. Epidemiology 22:582–585
VanderWeele TJ (2015) Explanation in causal inference: methods for mediation and interaction. Oxford University Press, New York
Zheng C, Zhou X (2015) Causal mediation analysis in the multilevel intervention and multicomponent mediator case. J R Stat Soc Ser B 77:581–615
Acknowledgments
The WHI programs is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts, HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Program Office
(National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland) Jacques Rossouw, Shari Ludlam, Dale Burwen, Joan McGowan, Leslie Ford and Nancy Geller.
Clinical Coordinating Center
(Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA) Garnet Anderson, Ross Prentice, Andrea LaCroix, and Charles Kooperberg.
Investigators and Academic Centers
(Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) JoAnn E. Manson; (MedStar Health Research Center, Stanford, CA) Marcia L. Stefanick; (The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH) Rebecca Jackson; (University of Arizona, Tucson/Phoenix, AZ) Cynthia A. Thomson; (University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY) Jean Wactawski-Wende; (University of Florida, Gainesville/Jacksonville, FL) Marian Limacher; (University of Iowa, Iowa City/Davenport, IA) Robert Wallace; (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA) Lewis Kuller; (Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC) Sally Shumaker.
Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study
(Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC) Sally Shumaker.
Appendices
Appendix A: Proof for Theorem 1
Here we first list the regularity conditions for the proof.
-
\(\varvec{\varTheta }(t)\) belong to a compact range of support and with the true value \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0(t)\) in the interior.
-
The joint density of observed variables has third order partial derivatives for \(\varvec{\varTheta }\).
-
Z, M and \(\varvec{X}\) are bounded.
-
\(S_C(t|z,m,\varvec{x})\) and \(S(t|z,m,\varvec{x})\) is bounded from 0.
Here, we will show the above conditions combined with Assumptions 1–9 is sufficient condition for locally (globally if stronger version of assumption 8 hold) identifiability of the parameter \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) from the estimating equation (4) with \(R(\varvec{X})=I_{n_i}\) and some \(A(Z,\varvec{X},t)\). For simplicity, we simply denote the summand of the right hand side of Eq. (4) as \(F_i(\varvec{\varTheta })\). Since the estimation of censoring survival distribution does not depend on \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) and can be identified and consistently estimated. So for the proof below, we will treat \(S_C(t|z,m,\varvec{x})\) as known. We will use the following steps to show the identifiability for each time point t and thus we will omit the notation t below. For any two parameters \(\varvec{\varTheta }_1\) and \(\varvec{\varTheta }_2\) that result in same distribution of observed variables, we will have
Also, we know that \(E_{\varvec{\varTheta }}F_i(\varvec{\varTheta })=0\) for any \(\varvec{\varTheta }\). So we have
So to prove that \(\varvec{\varTheta }_1=\varvec{\varTheta }_2\), we will just need to show \(0=E_{\varvec{\varTheta }_2}F_i(\varvec{\varTheta })\) have unique solution. It is suffice to show that the derivative of \(E_{\varvec{\varTheta }_2}F_i(\varvec{\varTheta })\) is positive definite. For local identifiability, as we assume the derivative is positive definite at \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0\) and the derivative is continuous with respect to \(\varvec{\varTheta }\), so there exists a region contain \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0\) such that the derivative above is positive definite at any value within the value, this is sufficient for the locally identifiability hold. For the global identifiability, the assumption 9 tells us that the derivative is positive definite at any \(\varvec{\varTheta }\).
Appendix B: Proof for Theorem 2
Here we prove that our estimator is regular and asymptotically linear (RAL) for a fixed time point t and thus we simply denote \(\varvec{\varTheta }(t)\) by \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) and the true value as \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0\). As the estimation of the survival distribution of C does not depend on \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) and we assumed that a regular asymptotic linear (RAL) estimator is used. By definition of RAL, we have
By delta method and the assumption that \(S_C(t)\) is bounded away from 0, we have
For simplicity, we denote the estimating equation (4) for \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) as below:
where \(F_{ij}(\varvec{\varTheta })=F(T^{*}_{ij},Z_{ij},M_{ij},\varvec{X}_{ij},\varvec{\varTheta })\). Also, we denote \(\hat{S}_C^{-1}(t|Z_{ij},M_{ij},\varvec{X}_{ij})\) as \(\hat{S}_{Cij}\) and \(S_C^{-1}(t|Z_{ij},M_{ij},\varvec{X}_{ij})\) as \(S_{Cij}\) for notation simplicity.
We will first prove the consistency of \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}\).
Since \(\hat{S}_{C}^{-1}(t|z,m,\varvec{x})-S_{C}^{-1}(t|z,m,\varvec{x})\) converge to 0 uniformly over t, z, m and \(\varvec{x}\) and \(F_{ij}(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }})\) is bounded in probability, we know that the second term converge to 0 in probability. By regularity condition, we can take derivative over \(F_{ij}(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }})\) and thus the first term become
where \(\varvec{\varTheta }^{*}\) is between \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0\) and \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}\). Under the locally identifiability assumption, we have \(\frac{\partial E(\sum _j S_{Cij}^{-1}(t)F_{ij}(\varvec{\varTheta }^{*}))}{\partial \varvec{\varTheta }}\) is positive definite, Since the derivative is continuous respect to \(\varvec{\varTheta }\), we have \(\frac{\partial E(\sum _j S_{Cij}^{-1}(t)F_{ij}(\varvec{\varTheta }^{*}))}{\partial \varvec{\varTheta }}\) is positive definite when \(\varvec{\varTheta }^{*}\) is within certain range of \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0\). So we have there exist a sequence of root \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}\) such that \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}-\varvec{\varTheta }_0=o_p(1)\). Or if we use the assumption of global identifiability, the derivative is positive definite for all \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) and thus we have \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}-\varvec{\varTheta }_0=o_p(1)\). So we obtain the consistency of \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}\). Note that \(\hat{S}(t|z,m,\varvec{x})\) and \(E_n(F_{ij}(\varvec{\varTheta }))\) are \(\sqrt{n}-\) consistency, so \(\forall d<1/2\), \(n^d(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}-\varvec{\varTheta }_0)=o_p(1)\).
Now we find the asymptotic expansion of \(\varvec{\varTheta }\).
Here we just need to expand the third term as below
Let \(E[\sum _j\phi _{l}(t|Z_{ij},M_{ij},\varvec{X}_{ij})F_{ij}(\varvec{\varTheta }_0)]=\psi _l\), then we have the quantity above is
With the identification assumption, we know that
is positive definite, so we have
where \(\varPsi _i=\sum _j S_{Cij}^{-1}(t)F_{ij}(\varvec{\varTheta })+\psi _i\). So we have proved that our estimator is asymptotic linear at each time point t. For any finite time points, the \(o_p(1)\) term in the proof above will be uniform and thus we can have that for any finite dimension, the distribution is joint normal. Then it follows that we have \(\varvec{\varTheta }(t),t\in [t_1,t_2]\) converge to a Gaussian Process.
Appendix C: Proof for Theorem 3
The proof is similar to that for Theorem 2 and we will just list the general steps here. For notation simplicity, we denote the estimating equations (6) and (7) as
Since we have shown the estimator in Theorem 2, denoted as \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}^{(0)}\) consistent to \(\varvec{\varTheta }\), so we have
for any \(\varvec{\beta }\). We also have
Under following additional assumptions:
-
For the A(z, x, t) and R(x) we choose, Eq. 4 is bounded in probability for all \(\varvec{\varTheta }\);
-
The joint density of observed variables have third order partial derivatives for both \(\varvec{\varTheta }\) and \(\varvec{\beta }\);
-
The estimating equation for \(\varvec{\beta }\) have unique solution under \(\varvec{\varTheta }_0\);
we know that \(\hat{\varvec{\beta }}^{(1)}\longrightarrow _p \varvec{\beta }^0\). Using same argument, we can show for k-th iteration, \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}^{(k)}\) and \(\hat{\varvec{\beta }}^{(k)}\) consistent to their true values. So if the limiting exist, then the final estimator \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}\) and \(\hat{\varvec{\beta }}\) is consistent estimator and jointly solve estimating equations (6) and (7). Then the asymptotic normality and linear expansion can be obtained using standard Taylor expansion as used for sandwich estimator.
Appendix D: Pseudo-Code for Implementation
1.1 Appendix D.1: Pseudo Code for Table 1
-
1.
Fit traditional additive hazard model to obtain \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}(t)\).
-
2.
Fit Cox model or additive hazard regression model to obtain \(\hat{S}_C(t|Z,M,X)\).
-
3.
Fit regression model to obtain \(E(Z|\varvec{X})\), \(E[M|Z=0,\varvec{X}]\) and \(E[M|Z=1,\varvec{X}]\) and compute \(A(Z,\varvec{X},t)=(Z-E(Z|\varvec{X}))(E[M|Z=1,\varvec{X}]-E[M|Z=0,\varvec{X}])\).
-
4.
For a series of fixed t, solve the estimation equation in (3) via quasi-Newton method starting from \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}(t)\) to obtain \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}^{(0)}(t)\).
-
5.
Fit weighted linear regression of \(\frac{I(T^{*}_{i}>t)}{\hat{S}_C(t|Z_{i},M_{i},\varvec{X}_{i})}\exp (\varTheta _{z}^{(k)}(t) Z_{i}+\varTheta _m^{(k)}(t)M_{i})\) on X to obtain \(\varvec{\beta }^{(k+1)}(t)\).
-
6.
Solve estimation equation in (5), treating \(\varvec{\beta }(t)=\varvec{\beta }^{(k+1)}(t)\) as fixed to obtain \(\hat{\varvec{\varTheta }}^{(k+1)}(t)\).
-
7.
Repeat 4 and 5 until converge to obtain estimation with linear adjusted covariates.
-
8.
Compute \(\hat{\theta }\) from \(\hat{\varTheta }\) using formula \(\hat{\theta }_z=\hat{\varTheta }_z(t)/(t-t_z)\) and \(\hat{\theta }_m=\hat{\varTheta }_m(t)/(t-t_m)\)
-
9.
Use Bootstrap to obtain confidence interval
1.2 Appendix D.2: Pseudo Code for Table 2
-
1.
Fix a sequence of t, denoted as \(t_1\), \(\ldots \), \(t_K\). For each \(t_i\), using the algorithm in Appendix D.1 to obtain corresponding \(\hat{\theta }_z(i)\) and \(\hat{\theta }_m(i)\) with or without linear adjustment.
-
2.
Compute standard error \(se_z(i)\) and \(se_m(i)\) for \(\hat{\theta }_z(i)\) and \(\hat{\theta }_m(i)\).
-
3.
For the “select method”, let \(\hat{\theta }_z\) be the \(\hat{\theta }_z(i)\) such that \(se_z(i)\) attains minimum among all i’s, and \(\hat{\theta }_m\) be the \(\hat{\theta }_m(i)\) such that \(se_m(i)\) attains minimum among all i’s.
-
4.
For “combine method”, let \(\hat{\theta }_z=\frac{\sum _{i=1}^K se^{-1}_z(i)\hat{\theta }_z(i)}{\sum _{i=1}^K se^{-1}_z(i)}\) and \(\hat{\theta }_m=\frac{\sum _{i=1}^K se^{-1}_m(i)\hat{\theta }_m(i)}{\sum _{i=1}^K se^{-1}_m(i)}\).
-
5.
Use Bootstrap to obtain the confidence interval.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zheng, C., Zhou, XH. Causal mediation analysis on failure time outcome without sequential ignorability. Lifetime Data Anal 23, 533–559 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-016-9377-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-016-9377-9
Keywords
- Additive hazard model
- Causal inference
- Inverse censoring probability weighting
- Generalized estimating equation