Cited by 362Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Estimation of Direct Causal Effects

Petersen, Maya L., Sinisi, Sandra E., van der Laan, Mark J.·2006·Epidemiology

Abstract

Many common problems in epidemiologic and clinical research involve estimating the effect of an exposure on an outcome while blocking the exposure's effect on an intermediate variable. Effects of this kind are termed direct effects. Estimation of direct effects is typically the goal of research aimed at understanding mechanistic pathways by which an exposure acts to cause or prevent disease, as well as in many other settings. Although multivariable regression is commonly used to estimate direct effects, this approach requires assumptions beyond those required for the estimation of total causal effects. In addition, when the exposure and intermediate variables interact to cause disease, multivariable regression estimates a particular type of direct effect-the effect of an exposure on an outcome when the intermediate is fixed at a specified level. Using the counterfactual framework, we distinguish this definition of a direct effect (controlled direct effect) from an alternative definition, in which the effect of the exposure on the intermediate is blocked, but the intermediate is otherwise allowed to vary as it would in the absence of exposure (natural direct effect). We illustrate the difference between controlled and natural direct effects using several examples. We present an estimation approach for natural direct effects that can be implemented using standard statistical software, and we review the assumptions underlying our approach (which are less restrictive than those proposed by previous authors).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ede.0000208475.99429.2d

Cites

17 of 17 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petersen, M. L., Sinisi, S. E., & van der Laan, M. J.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Petersen, Maya L.
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2006-05
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
276-284
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160610058
Cited by
362
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 32
FWCI
15.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM071397)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
natural direct effect, controlled direct effect, intermediate variables, counterfactual framework, causal inference, mechanistic pathways
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, United States, Models, Statistical, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Epidemiologic Studies

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