Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.30412

Power and sample size calculations for causal mediation analysis with a binary mediator in randomized trials

Bosen Cui·Yuhong Yang·Fan Yang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Mediation analyses are increasingly conducted in randomized trials, but a sample size adequate for the total treatment effect may leave the natural indirect effect (NIE) or natural direct effect (NDE) substantially underpowered. Randomization does not extend to the mediator, so precision depends on the conditional mediator distribution and the mediator-outcome association, neither of which enters a total-effect calculation. Planning outside linear structural equation models is largely based on simulation under a fully specified data-generating mechanism rarely available at the design stage. This paper develops analytic power and sample size formulas for the NIE and NDE with a binary mediator and a continuous or binary outcome. Under standard identification assumptions, we focus on the ratio-of-mediator-probability weighting (RMPW) estimator that does not require an outcome model for effect estimation. We decompose the oracle variances of the RMPW estimators into components capturing mediator-probability-ratio variability, outcome variation, and their association, with an additional shared-arm covariance term for the NIE. Under a probit latent-index mediator and a working outcome model, these components are determined by a small number of interpretable design inputs rather than by the full joint distribution of covariates, mediator, and outcome. Simulations show that the analytic sample sizes closely match simulation-based benchmarks, attain the target power, and maintain type I error near the nominal level. An ACTG175 illustration shows how pilot data can calibrate the inputs.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Bosen Cui, Yuhong Yang, Fan Yang. 2026-08-31. Power and sample size calculations for causal mediation analysis with a binary mediator in randomized trials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30412

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↗