title: A sufficient cause based approach to the assessment of mediation.
abstract: The minimal sufficient cause (MSC) model, also known as the sufficient component cause model, has been used to facilitate understanding of several key concepts in epidemiology. To improve the understanding of mediation, we introduce a causal model for mediation that is grounded in the MSC approach. First, we describe an unbiased model for mediation, to clarify the causal meaning of previously described indirect effects. Through the use of potential outcomes and response types, we express each indirect (and direct) effect in terms of component causes within the MSC model. Second, we use an MSC-based model to illustrate a common cause of the mediator and outcome, i.e. a confounder of the mediator-outcome relationship. By describing this potential source of bias within the MSC-based model, important complexities are noted that impact the magnitude of plausible confounding. In conclusion, an MSC-based approach leads to several important insights concerning the interpretation of indirect and direct effects, as well as the potential sources of bias in mediation analysis.
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. dmh2002@columbia.edu
authors.forename: Danella M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Hafeman
mesh_terms: D015984:Causality; D016021:Epidemiologic Studies; D006801:Humans; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000706:statistics & numerical data
references.citation: Lancet. 1997 Jul 26;350(9073):235-9
references.pmid: 9242799
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1999 Jan;10(1):37-48
references.pmid: 9888278
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):163-5
references.pmid: 11914314
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Oct;31(5):1030-7
references.pmid: 12435780
references.citation: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2006 Mar;16(2):191-205
references.pmid: 16160703
references.citation: Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(12):847-53
references.pmid: 17048084
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2006 May;17(3):276-84
references.pmid: 16617276
references.citation: NIDA Res Monogr. 1994;139:127-53
references.pmid: 8742555
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1200-4
references.pmid: 10784551
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 1998 Jan;88(1):12-4
references.pmid: 9584017
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1994 Sep;5(5):553-5
references.pmid: 7986873
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1982 Sep;8(3):159-68
references.pmid: 7156935
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1988 Apr;14(2):125-9
references.pmid: 3387960
references.citation: Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004 Oct 08;1(1):4
references.pmid: 15507130
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 May 19;322(7296):1233-6
references.pmid: 11358781
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Apr 1;145(7):661-8
references.pmid: 9098184
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 1986 Sep;15(3):413-9
references.pmid: 3771081
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:593-614
references.pmid: 16968208
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2007 May;18(3):329-39
references.pmid: 17435441
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 1996 May;86(5):674-7
references.pmid: 8629718
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1992 Mar;3(2):143-55
references.pmid: 1576220
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1976 Dec;104(6):587-92
references.pmid: 998606
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Nov 1;166(9):1096-104
references.pmid: 17702973