Can DAGs Clarify Effect Modification?
Open accessAbstract
The system proposed by VanderWeele and Robins for categorization of effect modifiers that are causal nodes in a directed acyclic graph (DAG) was not intended to empower DAGs to fully represent complex interactions among causes. However, once one has algebraically identified effect modifiers, the DAG implies a role for them. The limitations of epidemiologic definitions of "effect modification" are discussed, along with the implications of scale dependency for assessing interactions, where the scale can be either absolute risk, relative risk, or odds. My view is that probabilistic independence leads to the log-complement as a natural scale for interaction, but even that scale does not necessarily admit unambiguous inference. Any 2 direct causes of D are effect modifiers for each other on at least 2 scales, which can make a reasonable person question the utility of the concept. Still, etiologic models for joint effects are important, because most diseases arise through pathways involving multiple factors. I suggest an enhancement in construction of DAGs in epidemiology that includes arrow-on-arrow representations for effect modification. Examples are given, some of which depend on scale and some of which do not. An example illustrates possible biologic implications for such an effect modification DAG.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
DAGs are limited in their ability to depict many life course hypotheses such as effect modification.
“Due to their nonparametric nature, DAGs are limited in their ability to depict many life course hypotheses such as effect modification.16”
From A structured approach to hypotheses involving continuous exposures over the life course (2016) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Weinberg, C. R.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weinberg, Clarice R.
- ORCID
- Weinberg, Clarice R.
- Venue
- Epidemiology
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 569-572
- ISSN
- 1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2235194
- OpenAlex
- W1971048436
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01ES040006)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- effect modification, directed acyclic graphs, causal inference, interaction, scale dependence, probabilistic independence, multiple causes
- MeSH terms
- Computer Graphics, Epidemiologic Methods, Models, Statistical, Causality, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic
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