Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Mar 30;28(7):1108-30.
doi: 10.1002/sim.3533.

Mediation analysis with principal stratification

Affiliations

Mediation analysis with principal stratification

Robert Gallop et al. Stat Med. .

Abstract

In assessing the mechanism of treatment efficacy in randomized clinical trials, investigators often perform mediation analyses by analyzing if the significant intent-to-treat treatment effect on outcome occurs through or around a third intermediate or mediating variable: indirect and direct effects, respectively. Standard mediation analyses assume sequential ignorability, i.e. conditional on covariates the intermediate or mediating factor is randomly assigned, as is the treatment in a randomized clinical trial. This research focuses on the application of the principal stratification (PS) approach for estimating the direct effect of a randomized treatment but without the standard sequential ignorability assumption. This approach is used to estimate the direct effect of treatment as a difference between expectations of potential outcomes within latent subgroups of participants for whom the intermediate variable behavior would be constant, regardless of the randomized treatment assignment. Using a Bayesian estimation procedure, we also assess the sensitivity of results based on the PS approach to heterogeneity of the variances among these principal strata. We assess this approach with simulations and apply it to two psychiatric examples. Both examples and the simulations indicated robustness of our findings to the homogeneous variance assumption. However, simulations showed that the magnitude of treatment effects derived under the PS approach were sensitive to model mis-specification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mediation Process
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mediation process with the four latent classes of the Principal Stratification Model
Figure 3
Figure 3
Plots of the Prior (smooth line) and Posterior (histogram) distribution of the ITT estimates for each principal strata for the homogeneous variance model. Note: Plots from left to right and top to bottom are: Compliant mediating, Always mediating, Never mediating, and Defiant mediating.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Plots of the Prior (smooth line) and Posterior (histogram) distribution of the ITT estimates for each principal strata for the heterogeneous variance model. Note: Plots from left to right and top to bottom are: Compliant mediating, Always mediating, Never mediating, and Defiant mediating.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Plots of the Prior (smooth line) and Posterior (histogram) distribution of the ITT estimates for each principal strata for the homogeneous variance model. Note: Plots from left to right and top to bottom are: Compliant mediating, Always mediating, Never mediating, and Defiant mediating.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Plots of the Prior (smooth line) and Posterior (histogram) distribution of the ITT estimates for each principal strata for the heterogeneous variance model. Note: Plots from left to right and top to bottom are: Compliant mediating, Always mediating, Never mediating, and Defiant mediating.

References

    1. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics. 2002;58:21–29. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rubin D. Direct and indirect causal effects via potential outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. 2004;31:161–170.
    1. Mealli F, Imbens GW, Ferro S, Biggeri A. Analyzing a Randomized Trial on Breast Self-Examination with Noncompliance and Missing Outcomes. Biostatistics. 2004;5:207–222. - PubMed
    1. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:1173–1182. - PubMed
    1. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods. 2002;7:83–104. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms