Cited by 98Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyPhilosophy and History of Science

“Proportion explained”: a causal interpretation for standard measures of indirect effect?

Hafeman, Danella M.·2009·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The assessment of indirect effects is an important tool for epidemiologists interested in exploring the mechanisms of exposure-disease relations. A standard way of expressing an indirect effect is in terms of the "proportion explained"; this is the proportion of the total effect that is explained by a particular mediator (or set of mediators). There are several ways to calculate the proportion explained, based on both additive and multiplicative models. However, these standard methods (particularly those based on multiplicative models) have been criticized for lacking a causal interpretation. To address this issue, the author uses a framework of potential outcomes to define the indirect effects of interest (natural effects) and assess the correspondence between the natural effects and standard measures. The author finds that standard additive measures represent an unbiased weighted average of the effects of interest; standard multiplicative measures, on the other hand, yield a biased weighted average of these effects. If the investigator is primarily interested in whether or not an indirect effect exists, standard measures for mediation will often yield the correct answer. In contrast, if valid quantification of the indirect effect is desired, counterfactual-based methods should be used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwp283

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interpretation of our findings with regard to biological paths is hypothesis generating rather than able to prove their causal nature, given that an observational study is generally prone to confounding and other sources of bias.

    “Given that an observational study is generally prone to confounding and other sources of bias, interpretation of our findings with regard to biological paths is rather hypothesis generating than able to proof their causal nature (45).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hafeman, D. M.
Corresponding author
Hafeman, Danella M.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2009-10-22
Volume
170
Issue
11
Pages
1443-1448
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2107059876
Cited by
98
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh
  • Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
indirect effects, mediation analysis, potential outcomes, causal interpretation
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Estradiol, Female, Humans, Risk Factors, Statistics as Topic, Models, Statistical, Causality, Body Mass Index

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review