Identification of Causal Mediation Models with an Unobserved Pre-treatment Confounder

Ping He; Zhenguo Wu; Xiaohua Douglas Zhang; Zhi Geng

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41259-7_13

Statistical Causal Inferences and Their Applications in Public Health Research pp 241-262 | Cite as

Identification of Causal Mediation Models with an Unobserved Pre-treatment Confounder

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Ping He
Zhenguo Wu
Xiaohua Douglas ZhangEmail author
Zhi Geng

Chapter

First Online: 27 October 2016

1.1k Downloads

Part of the ICSA Book Series in Statistics book series (ICSABSS)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss identifiability of mediation, direct and indirect effects of treatment on outcome. The mediation effects are represented by a causal mediation model which includes an unobserved confounder (i.e., a common cause of the mediator and the outcome variable), and the direct and indirect effects are represented by the mediation effects. Without requiring the sequential ignorability assumption or the exclusion restriction assumption (i.e., the absence of direct effect of treatment on outcome), we require that only treatment is randomized and that the degree of equation nonlinearity for the treatment effect on the mediator is higher than that for the outcome. If the requirement of nonlinearity degree is not satisfied, we may use a covariate as an instrumental variable to improve the identifiability. In this paper, we focus on the identifiability of parameters, although, to illustrate our identifiability results, we describe estimation approaches. The simulations show good estimation performance by our approach compared to the standard mediation approach.

Keywords

Mediation Model Full Column Rank Ordinary Little Square Estimate Structural Equation Modeling Approach Unobserved Confounder

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by NSFC (11171365, 11021463, 10931002), 863 Program of China (2015AA020507) and a project founded by Merck (China).

Appendix 1: Proof of Theorem 1

We separately show the necessity and sufficiency for the identifiability of parameters in model (13.7). For necessity, suppose that the non-linearity condition does not hold, that is, | ρ(E(M | X), X) | = 1. This implies that there exist some a₀ and a₁ satisfying E(M | X) = a₁X + a₀ almost everywhere. Then from the model (13.7) we have

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl}E(Y \vert X)& =& b_{0} + b_{1}E(M\vert X) + b_{2}X{}\\ & =& (b_{0} + a_{0}b_{1}) + (a_{1}b_{1} + b_{2})X. {}\\\end{array}$$

The above equation implies that Y ismarginally linear with respect to X.For this linear model, only the intercept(b₀ + a₀b₁) and the slope(a₁b₁ + b₂) are identifiable as awhole, while parameters b₀,b₁, andb₂cannot be distinguished each other.

For sufficiency, if M is not marginally linearly related with respect to X, then we can find 3 levels: x₁, x₂, and x₃, which satisfy [E(M | x₁) − E(M | x₂)]∕(x₁ − x₂) ≠ [E(M | x₂) − E(M | x₃)]∕(x₂ − x₃). Hence the matrix in (13.10) has full rank. Thus parameters b₁ and b₂ can be identified, and then parameter b₀ can be identified from b₀ = E(Y | x_i) − b₁E(M | x_i) − b₂x_i.

Appendix 2: Proof for Theorem 2

For sufficiency, when E(M | X, Z) ≠ cX +ψ(Z), there are two situations: (i) E(M | X, Z) = Ψ(X) +ψ(Z), where Ψ(⋅ ) is a nonlinear function of X; (ii) E(M | X, Z) is not additive with respect to X and Z.

For situation (i), since Ψ(⋅ ) is not a linear function, we can choose three levels of X (say x₁, x₂, x₃) and some z satisfying [E(M | x₁, z) − E(M | x₂, z)]∕(x₁ − x₂) ≠ [E(M | x₂, z) − E(M | x₃, z)]∕(x₂ − x₃). Then the following equation from model (13.12) has a unique solution because the coefficient matrix has full rank:

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \left [\begin{array}{cc} E(M\vert x_{1},z) - E(M\vert x_{2},z)&x_{1} - x_{2} \\ E(M\vert x_{2},z) - E(M\vert x_{3},z)&x_{2} - x_{3}\\ \end{array} \right ]\left [\begin{array}{c} b_{1} \\ b_{2} \end{array} \right ]& =& \left [\begin{array}{c} E(Y \vert x_{1},z) - E(Y \vert x_{2},z) \\ E(Y \vert x_{2},z) - E(Y \vert x_{3},z) \end{array} \right ].{}\\ \end{array}$$

Thus the parameters can be identified.

For situation (ii), since E(M | X, Z) is not additive with respect to X and Z, we can find two levels of X (say x₁, x₂) and two levels of Z (say z₁, z₂) satisfying E(M | x₁, z₁) − E(M | x₂, z₁) ≠ E(M | x₁, z₂) − E(M | x₂, z₂). The following equation derived from model ( 3.4) has a unique solution because the coefficient matrix has full rank:

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \left [\begin{array}{cc} E(M\vert x_{1},z_{1}) - E(M\vert x_{2},z_{1})&x_{1} - x_{2} \\ E(M\vert x_{1},z_{2}) - E(S\vert x_{2},z_{2}) &x_{1} - x_{2}\\ \end{array} \right ]\left [\begin{array}{c} b_{1} \\ b_{2} \end{array} \right ]& =& \left [\begin{array}{c} E(Y \vert x_{1},z_{1}) - E(Y \vert x_{2},z_{1}) \\ E(Y \vert x_{1},z_{2}) - E(Y \vert x_{2},z_{2}) \end{array} \right ].{}\\ \end{array}$$

Thus the parameters can be identified.

For necessity, if E(M | X, Z) = cX +ψ(Z) for some constant c and ψ(⋅ ), then from model (13.12), we have

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} E(Y \vert X,Z)& =& b_{0} + b_{1}E(M\vert X,Z) + b_{2}X + E[\phi (U,Z,\varepsilon _{Y })\vert Z] {}\\ & =& b_{0} + (b_{1}c + b_{2})X +\varPhi (Z), {}\\ \end{array}$$

where Φ(Z) = b₁ψ(Z) + E[ϕ(U, Z, ɛ_Y) | Z]. We can easily see that only c, b₁c + b₂ and Φ(Z) can be identified given observed data of (Z, X, M, Y ). b₁ and b₂ cannot be identified because (1) E(M | X, Z) is linear with respect to X, and (2) E[ϕ(U, Z, ɛ_Y) | Z] cannot be identified since U and ɛ_Y are never observed. Thus the parameters in model (13.12) are identifiable only if E(M | X, Z) ≠ cX +ψ(Z).

Appendix 3: Proof for the Equivalence of Different Choices of f(⋅ ) in Eq. (13.15) for the Estimation When the Identifiability Condition in Theorem 1 Holds

We want to show that an arbitrary vector function f(⋅ ) that identifies β via Eq. (13.15) leads to the same estimator as that based on the function f^∗(⋅ ). For an arbitrary vector function f(⋅ ) = (f₁(⋅ ), f₂(⋅ ), ⋯ , f_K(⋅ ))′ (K > 2), we can denote it as

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \mathbf{f}(X)& =& \left [\begin{array}{ccc} f_{1}(1) & f_{1}(2) & f_{1}(3)\\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ f_{K}(1)&f_{K}(2)&f_{K}(3) \end{array} \right ]\left [\begin{array}{c} \delta (X = 1) \\ \delta (X = 2) \\ \delta (X = 3) \end{array} \right ].{}\end{array}$$

(13.21)

Let Q denote the K × 3 matrix on the right-hand side. Equation (13.15) can be rewritten as G β = H, where G = E[f(X), Mf(X), Xf(X)] and H = E[Yf(X)]. Then the estimation equation for β is $\widehat{G}\hat{\beta } =\widehat{ H}$. From (13.21), we have

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \widehat{G}& =& \widehat{E}[\mathbf{f}(X),M\mathbf{f}(X),X\mathbf{f}(X)] {}\\ & =& \widehat{E}[Q\mathbf{f}^{{\ast}}(X),MQ\mathbf{f}^{{\ast}}(X),XQ\mathbf{f}^{{\ast}}(X)] {}\\ & =& Q\widehat{E}[\mathbf{f}^{{\ast}}(X),M\mathbf{f}^{{\ast}}(X),X\mathbf{f}^{{\ast}}(X)] {}\\ & =& Q\widehat{G^{{\ast}}}, {}\\ \end{array}$$

where $\widehat{E}(\cdot )$ denotes the sample mean of the corresponding variable. Similarly, we have

$$\displaystyle{\widehat{H} = Q\widehat{H^{{\ast}}}.}$$

Then by the function f(⋅ ), the estimation equation for β is equivalent to

$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \widehat{G}\hat{\beta } -\widehat{ H} = Q(\widehat{G^{{\ast}}}\hat{\beta }-\widehat{ H^{{\ast}}}) = 0.& & {}\\ \end{array}$$

Since $\hat{\beta }^{{\ast}}$ satisfies the equation $\widehat{G^{{\ast}}}\hat{\beta }^{{\ast}}-\widehat{ H^{{\ast}}} = 0$, we have that $\hat{\beta }^{{\ast}}$ also satisfies $\widehat{G}\hat{\beta }^{{\ast}}-\widehat{ H} = 0$. Thus we proved $\hat{\beta }=\hat{\beta } ^{{\ast}}$ when Q has full rank, which means that the above equation of $\hat{\beta }$ has a unique solution.

Appendix 4: Proof for Matrix G^eff in Sect. 13.4.2 Equals E[f^eff(X)f^eff(X)′] and Has Full Rank When Non-linearity Condition in Theorem 1 Holds

(i)

We show that G^eff = E[f^eff(X)f^eff(X)′]. It is obvious that
$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} E[\mathbf{f}^{\mathrm{eff}}(X)\mathbf{f}^{\mathrm{eff}}(X)']& =& E\left \{\left [\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & E(M\vert X) & X \\ E(M\vert X)& E(M\vert X)^{2} & E(M\vert X)X \\ X &XE(M\vert X)& X^{2}\end{array} \right ]\right \} {}\\ & =& \left [\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & E(M) & E(X) \\ E(M)&E[E(M\vert X)^{2}]&E(XM) \\ E(X) & E(XM) & E(X^{2})\end{array} \right ] = G^{\mathrm{eff}}.{}\\ \end{array}$$
(ii)

We prove that G^eff has full rank when non-linearity condition in Theorem 1 holds. To prove that G^eff has full rank, we only need show that det(G^eff) ≠ 0 when | ρ(X, E(M | X)) | < 1. We have
$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \mathrm{det}(G^{\mathrm{eff}})& =& \left \vert \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & E(M) & E(X) \\ E(M)&E[E(M\vert X)^{2}]&E(XM) \\ E(X) & E(XM) & E(X^{2})\end{array} \right \vert {}\\ & =& \left \vert \begin{array}{ccc} 1& E(M) & E(X) \\ 0&E[E(M\vert X)^{2}] - [E(M)]^{2} & E(XM) - E(X)E(M) \\ 0& E(XM) - E(X)E(M) & E(X^{2}) - [E(X)]^{2}\end{array} \right \vert.{}\\ \end{array}$$
Since
$$\displaystyle{\mathrm{var}[E(M\vert X)] = E[E(M\vert X)^{2}] - [E(M)]^{2},\mathrm{var}(X) = E(X^{2}) - [E(X)]^{2}}$$
and
$$\displaystyle{\mathrm{cov}(X,E(M\vert X)) = E[XE(M\vert X)]-E(X)E[E(M\vert X)] = E(XM)-E(X)E(M),}$$
we have
$$\displaystyle\begin{array}{rcl} \mathrm{det}(G^{\mathrm{eff}})& =& \left \vert \begin{array}{ccc} 1& E(M) & E(X) \\ 0& \mathrm{var}[E(M\vert X)] &\mathrm{cov}(X,E(M\vert X)) \\ 0&\mathrm{cov}(X,E(M\vert X))& \mathrm{var}(X)\end{array} \right \vert {}\\ & =& \mathrm{var}[E(M\vert X)]\mathrm{var}(X)(1 - [\rho (X,E(M\vert X)]^{2}) > 0, {}\\ \end{array}$$
since | ρ(X, E(M | X)) | < 1.

References

1.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A.: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
Frangakis, C.E., Rubin, D.B.: Principle stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58, 21–29 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
3.
Hansen, L.S.: Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50, 1029–1054 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
4.
Herting, J.R.: Evaluating and rejecting true mediation models: a cautionary note. Prev. Sci. 3, 285–289 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Yamamoto, T.: Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat. Sci. 25 (1), 51C71 (2010)Google Scholar
6.
Jo, B.: Causal inference in randomized experiments with mediational processes. Psychol. Methods 13 (4), 314–336 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Kaufman, S., Kaufman, J.S., MacLehose, R., Greenland, S., Poole, C.: Improved estimation of controlled direct effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding of intermediate variables. Stat. Med. 24, 1683–1702 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.
Li, Y., Schneider, J.A., Bennet, D.A.: Estimation of the mediation effect with a binary mediator. Stat. Med. 26, 3398–3414 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., Fritz, M.S.: Mediation analysis. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 593–614 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
Newey, W.K., McFadden, D.: Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. In: R. F. Engle, R.F., McFadden, D. (eds.) Handbook of Econometrics, vol. IV, pp. 2111–2245. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
11.
Pearl, J.: Direct and indirect effects. In: Proc. 17th Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 411–420 (2000)Google Scholar
12.
Rubin, D.B.: Direct and indirect causal effects via potential outcomes. Scand. J. Stat. 31, 161–170 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
13.
Sobel, M.E.: Identification of causal parameters in randomized studies with mediating variables. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 33, 230–251 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.
Ten Have, T.R., Joffe, M.M., Lynch, K.G., Brown, G.K., Maisto, S.A., Beck, A.T.: Causal mediation analyses with rank preserving models. Biometrics 63, 926–934(2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
15.
VanderWeele, T.J.: Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 20 (1), 18–26 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
VanderWeele, T.J.: Controlled direct and mediated effects: definition, identification and bounds. Scand. J. Stat. 38, 551–563 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Ping He
- 1
Zhenguo Wu
- 1
Xiaohua Douglas Zhang
- 2
Email author
Zhi Geng
- 1

1.School of Mathematical SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingChina
2.Faculty of Health SciencesMacauChina

Identification of Causal Mediation Models with an Unobserved Pre-treatment Confounder

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgements

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter