Biometrika Advance Access originally published online on January 24, 2008
Biometrika 2008 95(1):49-61; doi:10.1093/biomet/asm090
Articles |
Empirical and counterfactual conditions for sufficient cause interactions
Department of Health Studies, University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, MC 2007, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A. vanderweele{at}uchicago.edu
Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A. robins{at}hsph.harvard.edu
Received for publication 1 September 2006. Revision received 1 July 2007.
Sufficient-component causes are discussed within the deterministic potential outcomes framework so as to formalize notions of sufficient causes, synergism and sufficient cause interactions. Doing so allows for the derivation of counterfactual and empirical conditions for detecting the presence of sufficient cause interactions. The conditions are novel in that, unlike other conditions in the literature, they make no assumption about monotonicity. The conditions can also be generalized and the conditions for three-way sufficient cause interactions are given explicitly. The statistical tests derived for sufficient cause interactions are compared with and contrasted to interaction terms in standard statistical models.
Key Words: Causal inference • Counterfactual • Interaction • Potential outcome • Risk difference • Sufficient cause • Synergism
References
-
Darroch J. N., Borkent M. Synergism, attributable risk and interaction for two binary exposure factors. Biometrika (1994) 81:259–70.
Davidson D. Essays on Actions and Events (1980) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flanders D. Sufficient-component cause and potential outcome models. Eur. J. Epidemiol. (2006) 21:847–53.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Greenland S. Estimating standardized parameters from generalized linear models. Statist. Med. (1991) 10:1069–74.[CrossRef]
Greenland S. Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2004) 160:301–5.
Greenland S., Brumback B. An overview of relations among causal modelling methods. Int. J. Epidemiol. (2002) 31:1030–7.
Greenland S., Poole C. Invariants and noninvariants in the concept of interdependent effects. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health (1988) 14:125–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
Hume D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) LaSalle, IL: Open Court Press. Reprinted, 1958.
Koopman J. S. Interaction between discrete causes. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1981) 113:716–24.
Lewis D. Causation. J. Philos. (1973) 70:556–67.[CrossRef]
Lewis D. Counterfactuals (1973) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis D. Events. In: Philosophical Papers (1986) Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 241–69.
Mackie J. L. Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly (1965) 2:245–64.[Web of Science]
Mantel N., Brown C., Byar D. P. Tests for homogeneity of effect in an epidemiologic investigation. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1977) 106:125–9.
Neyman J. Sur les applications de la théorie des probabilités aux experiences agricoles: Essay des principles. Statist. Sci.—Dabrowska D., Speed T., eds. (1923) 5:463–72. Excerpts reprinted (1990) in English.
Robins J. M. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure period – Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math. Mod. (1986) 7:1393–1512.[CrossRef]
Robins J. M. Addendum to a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure period – Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Comp. Math. Appl. (1987) 14:923–45.[CrossRef]
Rothman K. J. Causes. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1976) 104:587–92.
Rothman K. J., Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology (1998) Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.
Rubin D. B. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. (1974) 66:688–701.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Rubin D. B. Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Ann. Statist. (1978) 6:34–58.[CrossRef]
Spiegelman D., Hertzmark E. Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2005) 162:199–200.
VanderWeele T. J., Robins J. M. Directed acyclic graphs, sufficient causes and the properties of conditioning on a common effect. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2007) 166:1096–104.
Wacholder S. Binomial regression in GLIM: Estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1986) 123:174–84.
Wacholder S. The case-control study as data missing by design: Estimating risk differences. Epidemiology (1996) 7:145–50.
Wild C. J. Fitting prospective regression models to case-control data. Biometrika (1991) 78:705–17.
Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2004) 159:702–6.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||