BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Vanessa Didelez

Vanessa Didelez contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologymath.STStatistics TheoryArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Time-dependent mediators in survival analysis: Modelling direct and indirect effects with the additive hazards model

We discuss causal mediation analyses for survival data and propose a new approach based on the additive hazards model. The emphasis is on a dynamic point of view, that is, understanding how the direct and indirect effects develop over time. Hence, importantly, we allow for a time varying mediator. To define direct and indirect effects in such a longitudinal survival setting we take an interventional approach (Didelez (2018)) where treatment is separated into one aspect affecting the mediator and a different aspect affecting survival. In general, this leads to a version of the non-parametric g-formula (Robins (1986)). In the present paper, we demonstrate that combining the g-formula with the additive hazards model and a sequential linear model for the mediator process results in simple and interpretable expressions for direct and indirect effects in terms of relative survival as well as cumulative hazards. Our results generalise and formalise the method of dynamic path analysis (Fosen et al. (2006), Strohmaier et al. (2015)). An application to data from a clinical trial on blood pressure medication is given.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Generalized interpretation and identification of separable effects in competing event settings

In competing event settings, a counterfactual contrast of cause-specific cumulative incidences quantifies the total causal effect of a treatment on the event of interest. However, effects of treatment on the competing event may indirectly contribute to this total effect, complicating its interpretation. We previously proposed the separable effects (Stensrud et al, 2019) to define direct and indirect effects of the treatment on the event of interest. This definition presupposes a treatment decomposition into two components acting along two separate causal pathways, one exclusively outside of the competing event and the other exclusively through it. Unlike previous definitions of direct and indirect effects, the separable effects can be subject to empirical scrutiny in a study where separate interventions on the treatment components are available. Here we extend and generalize the notion of the separable effects in several ways, allowing for interpretation, identification and estimation under considerably weaker assumptions. We propose and discuss a definition of separable effects that is applicable to general time-varying structures, where the separable effects can still be meaningfully interpreted, even when they cannot be regarded as direct and indirect effects. We further derive weaker conditions for identification of separable effects in observational studies where decomposed treatments are not yet available; in particular, these conditions allow for time-varying common causes of the event of interest, the competing events and loss to follow-up. For these general settings, we propose semi-parametric weighted estimators that are straightforward to implement. As an illustration, we apply the estimators to study the separable effects of intensive blood pressure therapy on acute kidney injury, using data from a randomized clinical trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Separable Effects for Causal Inference in the Presence of Competing Events

In time-to-event settings, the presence of competing events complicates the definition of causal effects. Here we propose the new separable effects to study the causal effect of a treatment on an event of interest. The separable direct effect is the treatment effect on the event of interest not mediated by its effect on the competing event. The separable indirect effect is the treatment effect on the event of interest only through its effect on the competing event. Similar to Robins and Richardson's extended graphical approach for mediation analysis, the separable effects can only be identified under the assumption that the treatment can be decomposed into two distinct components that exert their effects through distinct causal pathways. Unlike existing definitions of causal effects in the presence of competing events, our estimands do not require cross-world contrasts or hypothetical interventions to prevent death. As an illustration, we apply our approach to a randomized clinical trial on estrogen therapy in individuals with prostate cancer.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Direct and Indirect Effects of Sequential Treatments

In this paper we review the notion of direct causal effect as introduced by Pearl (2001). We show how it can be formulated without counterfactuals, using intervention indicators instead. This allows to consider the natural direct effect as a special case of sequential treatments discussed by Dawid and Didelez (2005) which immediately yields conditions for identifiability as well as a graphical way of checking identifiability. The results are contrasted with the criteria given by Pearl (2001) and Robins (2003).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Identifying Optimal Sequential Decisions

We consider conditions that allow us to find an optimal strategy for sequential decisions from a given data situation. For the case where all interventions are unconditional (atomic), identifiability has been discussed by Pearl & Robins (1995). We argue here that an optimal strategy must be conditional, i.e. take the information available at each decision point into account. We show that the identification of an optimal sequential decision strategy is more restrictive, in the sense that conditional interventions might not always be identified when atomic interventions are. We further demonstrate that a simple graphical criterion for the identifiability of an optimal strategy can be given.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Graphical Models for Inference Under Outcome-Dependent Sampling

We consider situations where data have been collected such that the sampling depends on the outcome of interest and possibly further covariates, as for instance in case-control studies. Graphical models represent assumptions about the conditional independencies among the variables. By including a node for the sampling indicator, assumptions about sampling processes can be made explicit. We demonstrate how to read off such graphs whether consistent estimation of the association between exposure and outcome is possible. Moreover, we give sufficient graphical conditions for testing and estimating the causal effect of exposure on outcome. The practical use is illustrated with a number of examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Assumptions of IV Methods for Observational Epidemiology

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are becoming increasingly popular as they seem to offer the only viable way to overcome the problem of unobserved confounding in observational studies. However, some attention has to be paid to the details, as not all such methods target the same causal parameters and some rely on more restrictive parametric assumptions than others. We therefore discuss and contrast the most common IV approaches with relevance to typical applications in observational epidemiology. Further, we illustrate and compare the asymptotic bias of these IV estimators when underlying assumptions are violated in a numerical study. One of our conclusions is that all IV methods encounter problems in the presence of effect modification by unobserved confounders. Since this can never be ruled out for sure, we recommend that practical applications of IV estimators be accompanied routinely by a sensitivity analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Identifying the consequences of dynamic treatment strategies: A decision-theoretic overview

We consider the problem of learning about and comparing the consequences of dynamic treatment strategies on the basis of observational data. We formulate this within a probabilistic decision-theoretic framework. Our approach is compared with related work by Robins and others: in particular, we show how Robins's 'G-computation' algorithm arises naturally from this decision-theoretic perspective. Careful attention is paid to the mathematical and substantive conditions required to justify the use of this formula. These conditions revolve around a property we term stability, which relates the probabilistic behaviours of observational and interventional regimes. We show how an assumption of 'sequential randomization' (or 'no unmeasured confounders'), or an alternative assumption of 'sequential irrelevance', can be used to infer stability. Probabilistic influence diagrams are used to simplify manipulations, and their power and limitations are discussed. We compare our approach with alternative formulations based on causal DAGs or potential response models. We aim to show that formulating the problem of assessing dynamic treatment strategies as a problem of decision analysis brings clarity, simplicity and generality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access