Advertisement

Lifetime Data Analysis

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 381–405 | Cite as

Dealing with death when studying disease or physiological marker: the stochastic system approach to causality

  • Daniel CommengesEmail author
Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

The stochastic system approach to causality is applied to situations where the risk of death is not negligible. This approach grounds causality on physical laws, distinguishes system and observation and represents the system by multivariate stochastic processes. The particular role of death is highlighted, and it is shown that local influences must be defined on the random horizon of time of death. We particularly study the problem of estimating the effect of a factor V on a process of interest Y, taking death into account. We unify the cases where Y is a counting process (describing an event) and the case where Y is quantitative; we examine the case of observations in continuous and discrete time and we study the issue of whether the mechanism leading to incomplete data can be ignored. Finally, we give an example of a situation where we are interested in estimating the effect of a factor (blood pressure) on cognitive ability in elderly.

Keywords

Ageing Causality Death Epidemiology Joint models Markers Stochastic system 

References

  1. Aalen OO (1987) Dynamic modelling and causality. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 3–4:177–190MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Aalen OO, Borgan O, Gjessing H (2008) Survival and event history analysis: a process point of view. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Aalen OO, Cook RJ, Røysland K (2015) Does cox analysis of a randomized survival study yield a causal treatment effect? Lifetime Data Anal 21(4):579–593MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Aalen OO, Røysland K, Gran JM, Kouyos R, Lange T (2016) Can we believe the dags? a comment on the relationship between causal dags and mechanisms. Stat Methods Med Res 25(5):2294–2314MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Abell JG, Kivimäki M, Dugravot A, Tabak AG, Fayosse A, Shipley M, Sabia S, Singh-Manoux A (2018) Association between systolic blood pressure and dementia in the Whitehall II cohort study: role of age, duration, and threshold used to define hypertension. Eur Heart J 33(1):3119–3125Google Scholar
  6. Andersen PK, Keiding N (2002) Multi-state models for event history analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 11(2):91–115zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersen PK, Borgan Ø, Gill RD, Keiding N (1993) Statistical methods based on counting processes. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Arjas E, Parner J (2004) Causal reasoning from longitudinal data. Scand J Stat 31(2):171–187MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Asparouhov T, Hamaker EL, Muthén B (2017) Dynamic structural equation models. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 25:359–388MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Commenges D, Gégout-Petit A (2007) Likelihood for generally coarsened observations from multistate or counting process models. Scand J Stat 34(2):432–450MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Commenges D, Gégout-Petit A (2009) A general dynamical statistical model with causal interpretation. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 71(3):719–736MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Commenges D, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2015) Dynamical biostatistical models, vol 86. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Commenges D, Joly P, Gégout-Petit A, Liquet B (2007) Choice between semi-parametric estimators of Markov and non-Markov multi-state models from coarsened observations. Scand J Stat 34(1):33–52MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Commenges D, Gégout-Petit A (2005) Likelihood inference for incompletely observed stochastic processes: ignorability conditions. arXiv:math/0507151
  15. Commenges D, Gégout-Petit A (2015) The stochastic system approach for estimating dynamic treatments effect. Lifetime Data Anal 21:1–18MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Dantan E, Joly P, Dartigues J-F, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2011) Joint model with latent state for longitudinal and multistate data. Biostatistics 12(4):723–736zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Serio C (1997) The protective impact of a covariate on competing failures with an example from a bone marrow transplantation study. Lifetime Data Anal 3(2):99–122zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Didelez V (2008) Graphical models for marked point processes based on local independence. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 70(1):245–264MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Dufouil C, Brayne C, Clayton D (2004) Analysis of longitudinal studies with death and drop-out: a case study. Stat Med 23(14):2215–2226Google Scholar
  20. Farewell D, Huang C, Didelez V (2017) Ignorability for general longitudinal data. Biometrika 104(2):317–326MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Fosen J, Ferkingstad E, Borgan Ø, Aalen OO (2006) Dynamic path analysis-a new approach to analyzing time-dependent covariates. Lifetime Data Anal 12(2):143–167MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB (2002) Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58(1):21–29MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Ganiayre J, Commenges D, Letenneur L (2008) A latent process model for dementia and psychometric tests. Lifetime Data Anal 14(2):115–133MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Gégout-Petit A, Commenges D (2010) A general definition of influence between stochastic processes. Lifetime Data Anal 16(1):33–44MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Gill RD, Van Der Laan MJ, Robins JM (1997) Coarsening at random: characterizations, conjectures, counter-examples. In: Proceedings of the FirstSeattle symposium in biostatistics. Springer, pp 255–294Google Scholar
  26. Greenland S (2003) Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology 14(3):300–306Google Scholar
  27. Gruger J, Kay R, Schumacher M (1991) The validity of inferences based on incomplete observations in disease state models. Biometrics 47:595–605Google Scholar
  28. Heitjan DF, Rubin DB (1991) Ignorability and coarse data. Ann Stat 19:2244–2253MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Jazwinski H (1970) Stochastic process and filtering theory. Academic, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Joffe M (2011) Principal stratification and attribution prohibition: good ideas taken too far. Int J Biostat 7(1) article: 35Google Scholar
  31. Joly P, Commenges D, Helmer C, Letenneur L (2002) A penalized likelihood approach for an illness-death model with interval-censored data: application to age-specific incidence of dementia. Biostatistics 3(3):433–443zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalman RE, Bucy RS (1961) New results in linear filtering and prediction theory. J Basic Eng 83(1):95–108MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurland BF, Johnson LL, Egleston BL, Diehr PH (2009) Longitudinal data with follow-up truncated by death: match the analysis method to research aims. Stat Sci Rev J Inst Math Stat 24(2):211MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearl J (2011) Principal stratification-a goal or a tool? Int J Biostat 7(1), article: 20Google Scholar
  35. Pearl J (2000) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Prague M, Commenges D, Drylewicz J, Thiébaut R (2012) Treatment monitoring of HIV-infected patients based on mechanistic models. Biometrics 68:902–911MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Prague M, Commenges D, Gran JM, Ledergerber B, Young J, Furrer H, Thiébaut R (2017) Dynamic models for estimating the effect of HAART on CD4 in observational studies: application to the aquitaine cohort and the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Biometrics 73(1):294–304MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Proust C, Jacqmin-Gadda H, Taylor JMG, Ganiayre J, Commenges D (2006) A nonlinear model with latent process for cognitive evolution using multivariate longitudinal data. Biometrics 62(4):1014–1024MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Proust-Lima C, Dartigues J-F, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2016) Joint modeling of repeated multivariate cognitive measures and competing risks of dementia and death: a latent process and latent class approach. Stat Med 35(3):382–398MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Proust-Lima C, Philipps V, Liquet B (2015) Estimation of extended mixed models using latent classes and latent processes: the R package lcmm. arXiv:1503.00890
  41. Rizopoulos D (2010) JM: An R package for the joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data. J Stat Softw (Online) 35(9):1–33Google Scholar
  42. Rouanet A, Joly P, Dartigues J-F, Proust-Lima C, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2016) Joint latent class model for longitudinal data and interval-censored semi-competing events: application to dementia. Biometrics 72(4):1123–1135MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Rubin DB (2006) Causal inference through potential outcomes and principal stratification: application to studies with censoring due to death. Stat Sci 21:299–309MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Schweder T (1970) Composable markov processes. J Appl Probab 7(2):400–410MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Tchetgen EJT, Glymour MM, Shpitser I, Weuve J (2012) Rejoinder: to weight or not to weight? On the relation between inverse-probability weighting and principal stratification for truncation by death. Epidemiology 23(1):132–137Google Scholar
  46. VanderWeele TJ (2011) Principal stratification-uses and limitations. Int J Biostat 7(1):1–14MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I (2013) On the definition of a confounder. Ann Stat 41(1):196MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang C, Scharfstein DO, Colantuoni E, Girard TD, Yan Y (2017) Inference in randomized trials with death and missingness. Biometrics 73(2):431–440MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Weuve J, Proust-Lima C, Power MC, Gross AL, Hofer SM, Thiébaut R, Chêne G, Glymour MM, Dufouil C, Initiative M et al (2015) Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research. Alzheimer’s Dement 11(9):1098–1109Google Scholar
  50. Wimsatt WC (1994) The ontology of complex systems: levels of organization, perspectives, and causal thickets. Can J Philos 20:207–274Google Scholar
  51. Yang F, Ding P (2018) Using survival information in truncation by death problems without the monotonicity assumption. Biometrics (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSERM, U 1219, Bordeaux UniversityBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations