Mediation effects that emulate a target randomised trial: Simulation-based evaluation of ill-defined interventions on multiple mediators

Margarita Moreno-Betancur; Paul Moran; Denise Becker; George C Patton; John B Carlin

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1907.06734

Mediation effects that emulate a target randomised trial: Simulation-based evaluation of ill-defined interventions on multiple mediators

Margarita Moreno-Betancur·Paul Moran·Denise Becker·George C Patton·John B Carlin

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many epidemiological questions concern potential interventions to alter the pathways presumed to mediate an association. For example, we consider a study that investigates the benefit of interventions in young adulthood for ameliorating the poorer mid-life psychosocial outcomes of adolescent self-harmers relative to their healthy peers. Two methodological challenges arise. Firstly, mediation methods have hitherto mostly focused on the elusive task of discovering pathways, rather than on the evaluation of mediator interventions. Secondly, the complexity of such questions is invariably such that there are no existing data on well-defined interventions (i.e. actual treatments, programs, etc.) capturing the populations, outcomes and time-spans of interest. Instead, researchers must rely on exposure (non-intervention) data to address these questions, such as self-reported substance use and employment. We address the resulting challenges by specifying a target trial addressing three policy-relevant questions, regarding the impacts of hypothetical (rather than actual) interventions that would shift the mediators' distributions (separately, jointly or sequentially) to user-specified distributions that can be emulated with the observed data. We then define novel interventional effects that map to this trial, emulating shifts by setting mediators to random draws from those distributions. We show that estimation using a g-computation method is possible under an expanded set of causal assumptions relative to inference with well-defined interventions. These expanded assumptions reflect the lower level of evidence that is inevitable with ill-defined interventions. Application to the self-harm example using data from the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study illustrates the value of our proposal for informing the design and evaluation of actual interventions in the future.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Margarita Moreno-Betancur, Paul Moran, Denise Becker, George C Patton, John B Carlin. 2020-07-13. Mediation effects that emulate a target randomised trial: Simulation-based evaluation of ill-defined interventions on multiple mediators. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06734

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗