Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references

A Bayesian semi-parametric approach to causal mediation for longitudinal mediators and time-to-event outcomes with application to a cardiovascular disease cohort study

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian semi-parametric G-computation approach identifies interventional direct and indirect effects on time-to-event outcomes with time-varying exposures, mediators, and confounders, and extends the identification to competing risks.

desk verdict A coherent BART-based implementation of interventional mediation for longitudinal and survival data with a competing-risks extension; the application's causal interpretation rests on assumptions the authors themselves flag, but the methodology is solid and worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18739 v1 pith:SJCWUPYI submitted 2024-11-27 stat.ME stat.AP

Saurabh Bhandari , Michael J. Daniels , Maria Josefsson , Donald M. Lloyd-Jones , Juned Siddique This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62D2062F1562N01
keywords causalmediationinterventionaldirectandindirecteffectsBayesianadditiveregressiontreestime-to-eventoutcomescompetingriskstime-varyingconfoundinglongitudinaldataG-computation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper develops causal mediation analysis for longitudinal cohort data in which exposure, mediator, and confounders are measured repeatedly and the outcome is a time-to-event such as death. The authors establish that interventional direct, indirect, and total effects on survival—and, with competing events, on cause-specific cumulative incidence functions—are identified from observed data under sequential no-unmeasured-confounding assumptions. They then estimate these effects with a semi-parametric Bayesian additive regression tree (BART) G-computation algorithm that accommodates continuous or binary mediators and confounders without linearity or proportional-hazards assumptions. Applied to blood-pressure medication and cardiovascular death in a hypertensive cohort, the method yields effect estimates that are mostly statistically indistinguishable from zero, which the authors attribute to short follow-up and possible violation of strong ignorability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interventional mediator distribution: for a subject with a given observed longitudinal history, the mediator is not fixed to its counterfactual level but drawn randomly from the distribution of mediator values among subjects under the control exposure regime with matching history. This sidesteps the non-identification of natural direct and indirect effects when time-varying confounders are affected by prior exposure. Estimation is carried out by BART models for each time-varying confounder, mediator, and discrete-time hazard, with a probit link for binary variables, together with a Bayesian bootstrap over baseline confounders. For competing events, the joint event likelihood is decomposed into a BART model for the main event hazard and a second BART model for the competing-event hazard conditional on no main event, avoiding proportional-hazards assumptions.

What would settle it

Obtain a measured proxy for the suspected confounder, such as self-reported duration of hypertension or medication adherence, and re-estimate the model with it added to the mediator and outcome BART models; if either the estimated interventional direct or indirect effect shifts by more than one credible-interval width, the no-unmeasured-confounding assumption is contradicted by the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that interventional direct and indirect effects are identified for time-varying exposures, mediators, and confounders with a survival outcome. For exposure regimes $z$ and $z^*$, the estimator contrasts survival probabilities under a static exposure intervention and a random mediator intervention: the interventional direct effect is $\mathrm{IDE}(t_j) = S_{z,z^*}(t_j) - S_{z^*,z^*}(t_j)$, the indirect effect is $\mathrm{IIE}(t_j) = S_{z,z}(t_j) - S_{z,z^*}(t_j)$, and they sum to the total effect. The paper proves that these contrasts reduce to functionals of the observed data distribution, and the competing-event extension identifies the analogous contrasts for cause-specific cumulative incidence functions for both the main and the competing event. A BART-based G-computation algorithm then estimates the required conditional densities and integrates them over the observed baseline confounder distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, after conditioning on everything observed up to a visit, no unmeasured factor such as diet, exercise, medication adherence, family history, or pre-study hypertension history affects both the mediator and the outcome; if that fails, the estimated direct and indirect effects are not causal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the identifying assumptions hold, the estimator gives approximately unbiased interventional direct, indirect, and total effects for time-to-event outcomes without assuming linearity, proportional hazards, or a correctly specified parametric outcome model.
  • The competing-event version provides a decomposition of total effects on cause-specific cumulative incidence functions, which is useful when non-cardiovascular death precludes the event of interest.
  • Simulation results indicate that, when the data-generating model includes interactions and log terms, the BART estimator has smaller bias and better credible-interval coverage than a misspecified parametric model.
  • In the cardiovascular application, the estimated direct and indirect effects of blood-pressure medication on death from cardiovascular disease are mostly null over the short follow-up window, consistent with the small number of events rather than with evidence of no mediation.
  • Adding an externally predicted cumulative blood-pressure history as a baseline confounder does not materially change the estimates under the stated transportability assumption, suggesting that this particular unmeasured confounder is not driving the conclusions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: because identification rests on sequential no-unmeasured-confounding, a formal sensitivity analysis that perturbs the mediator-outcome confounding structure would quantify how far IDE and IIE can move before the causal reading fails.
  • Editorial extension: the two-model competing-event decomposition extends naturally to more than two event types by adding further conditional BART hazard models, and the same G-computation steps would apply.
  • Editorial extension: the external-cohort imputation of cumulative mean blood pressure assumes transportability of a blood-pressure trajectory model across cohorts; that assumption could be tested by validating predicted trajectories against later observed blood pressure in the target cohort.
  • Editorial extension: incorporating predicted mediator values into the outcome model, the route the authors note as future work for reducing BART 'prior dogmatism,' could adapt this estimator to higher-dimensional covariate settings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Bayesian semi-parametric approach to causal mediation for longitudinal mediators and time-to-event outcomes, with both a no-competing-event and a competing-event version. The estimands are interventional direct and indirect effects on survival probabilities and on cause-specific cumulative incidence functions, defined via random interventions on the mediator. Identification is claimed under standard sequential randomization, positivity, and consistency assumptions (Propositions 1a and 2). Estimation uses BART for the observed-data models and a G-computation algorithm that propagates posterior samples through the sequential conditional distributions. The method is applied to the ARIC cohort to estimate the effect of blood pressure medication on time to CVD death, mediated by mean blood pressure, with smoking as a time-varying confounder and non-CVD death as a competing event. A separate section proposes imputing cumulative mean blood pressure from the external CARDIA cohort to reduce suspected unmeasured confounding.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a useful and flexible implementation of interventional mediation analysis for a setting that is difficult to handle with parametric structural equation models: time-varying exposures, mediators, and confounders, with discrete-time survival and competing risks. The BART-based G-computation is a natural extension of existing work by Zheng and van der Laan (2017), Lin et al. (2017), and Vansteelandt et al. (2019), and the authors provide R code, which is a practical asset. The identification proofs follow standard sequential randomization arguments and are largely correct in structure. The main weaknesses are that the simulation studies validate the estimator against a self-generated GLM truth rather than against a known data-generating mechanism, and that the proposed external-data correction for unmeasured confounding does not quantitatively bound the bias from violations of the mediator-outcome ignorability assumptions, which the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 9.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 8.1/8.2 and Assumption 7] The CMBP correction does not close the gap left by Assumption 3(ii)/6(ii). Section 8 imputes only one suspected unmeasured confounder, while Section 9 lists diet, physical activity, family history, and medication duration/adherence as additional plausible confounders. Moreover, the comparison of Tables 3-4 with Tables 5-6 is not a quantitative sensitivity analysis: the imputation procedure samples one random-effects pair per ARIC participant from race/sex matches but does not propagate uncertainty in the fitted fixed effects, the random-effects distribution, or the matching step, and the authors state this explicitly. An unchanged point estimate under such an imputation does not bound the bias from an unmeasured confounder, so the conclusion that "the results are not very sensitive" in Section 8.2 overstates what is established. The estimands remain identified only under the untestable sequential ignorability plus transportability assumptions; the Section 8 analysis should be presented as exploratory rather than as a sensitivity bound.
  2. [Algorithm 2, Step 2(b)(vi)] Step 2(b)(vi) instructs the user to "sample one observation of Y_{t_{j+1}},(1)" from a Bernoulli distribution with probability I^(2), the hazard for the competing event. This is internally inconsistent: the main-event indicator should be sampled from I^(1), and the competing-event indicator should be sampled from I^(2). As written, the sequential G-computation for competing events would draw the wrong event indicators and would not implement the likelihood factorization in equation (10). If this is a typographical error, the step must be corrected and the code checked against the corrected algorithm; if not, the competing-events implementation is incorrect.
  3. [Section 6, Tables 1-2] The simulation ground truth is generated from GLMs fitted to the observed ARIC data, so the "true" causal effects are functionals of parametric fits to the same sample, not quantities from a known structural data-generating process. The misspecification scenario adds log and interaction terms but remains within the same generalized linear framework and does not alter the confounding assumptions. Consequently, the simulations demonstrate that BART can approximate the target of a GLM-based G-computation and is more robust to certain nonlinearities, but they do not evaluate bias when Assumption 3(ii)/6(ii) fails, which is the principal threat in the application. I recommend adding a simulation with a known data-generating mechanism, or with a controlled unmeasured mediator-outcome confounder, or explicitly delimiting what the current simulations establish.
  4. [Section 4, Proposition 2] Proposition 2 states identification under "Assumptions 1-6," but Assumptions 4-6 are introduced as modifications of Assumptions 1-3 for competing events. It is not clear whether Assumptions 1-3 are also required in the competing-event setting or are entirely replaced by Assumptions 4-6. The proof in the supplement appears to use consistency and no-unmeasured-confounding conditions in the competing-event form, but the statement should be clarified so that readers know exactly which set of assumptions is being invoked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 8.1] The text refers to "the model in (24)" when describing the CARDIA mixed-effects model, but the model is displayed as equation (18).
  2. [Algorithm 1, Step 1] Algorithm 1 refers to models "as specified in Section 4.2," but the model specification is in Section 5.2.
  3. [Table 10 note] The table note contains a stray closing parenthesis: "in ARIC. )" should read "in ARIC."
  4. [Section 6] The simulation section does not report the number of Monte Carlo repetitions used for the G-computation step or the number of posterior draws kept for the BART and parametric models, which would be helpful for assessing Monte Carlo error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: identification is proven from stated assumptions, estimation is posterior G-computation, and the external-data confounder adjustment is not a fitted-input prediction; only minor implementation-level self-citations.

full rationale

Propositions 1a/1b and 2 identify the interventional hazard contrasts as explicit functionals of the observed-data distribution (Eqs. 6-7 and the Proposition 2 display), with proofs in Supplementary Section A that invoke only consistency, positivity, and sequential ignorability (Assumptions 1-6). The estimands in Eqs. (4)-(5) and (9) are defined before estimation, and the TE = IDE + IIE decomposition is an algebraic identity, not a fitted result. Algorithm 1/2 then sample these identified functionals from BART posteriors; no parameter is fit to a subset and then reported as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The Section 8 CMBP adjustment is not circular: the cumulative MBP is imputed from an external CARDIA mixed model under an explicitly stated transportability assumption (Assumption 7), and the comparison of Tables 3-4 with 5-6 is a sensitivity check, albeit one that does not propagate imputation uncertainty. The simulation section generates data from GLMs fitted to ARIC, which weakens external validation but is standard simulation practice rather than a circular derivation of the estimands. Self-citations (Josefsson and Daniels 2021; Josefsson 2023) concern the G-computation/BART implementation and are not load-bearing for the identification claims. The main substantive weakness, suspected unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship, is acknowledged by the authors in Sections 8-9 and is an assumption-violation risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The identified estimands rest on standard causal assumptions (consistency, positivity, sequential ignorability) plus a discrete-time, static-regime structure. The external-data correction adds a transportability assumption, and the BART priors and MAR dropout handling are additional modeling choices. The free parameters listed are those fitted in the CARDIA imputation model and in the simulation ground truth, both of which the reported uncertainty intervals do not fully reflect.

free parameters (3)
  • CARDIA mixed-model fixed effects (beta_0 through beta_8) for MBP trajectory = not reported in text
    Fitted to CARDIA data in Eq. (18) and used to compute predicted cumulative MBP for ARIC participants in Section 8.1.
  • CARDIA random-effects pairs (b0, b1) assigned to ARIC participants = sampled per ARIC participant from matched CARDIA subjects
    Used to generate CMBP values; sampled once, so point estimates and intervals ignore this imputation variability as stated in Section 8.2.
  • GLM coefficients used to define simulation ground truth = not reported in text
    Fit to observed ARIC data in Section 6 to generate 1,000 simulated replications; the simulation then compares BART against this self-generated truth.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Consistency assumptions (Assumption 1 and Assumption 4)
    Counterfactual outcomes equal observed outcomes when observed exposure and mediator histories match the interventions. This is standard in causal inference but untestable from data.
  • domain assumption Positivity assumptions (Assumption 2 and Assumption 5)
    Requires positive probability of each exposure and mediator level in every observed confounder and mediator stratum, ensuring the conditional densities in Propositions 1a and 2 are well defined.
  • domain assumption Sequential no-unmeasured-confounding (Assumption 3 and Assumption 6)
    Exposure and mediator are independent of future counterfactual outcomes conditional on observed history. The authors acknowledge this is suspect in the ARIC application in Sections 8 and 9.
  • domain assumption Static exposure regimes only
    The contrasts compare 'always treat' versus 'never treat' and do not allow dynamic treatment strategies, as stated in Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Discrete-time visits and equidistant observation times
    The data structure in Section 3.1 assumes participants are seen at fixed visit times and survival is recorded in visit intervals.
  • domain assumption BART priors with default hyperparameters adequately approximate the conditional distributions
    The models for mediators, confounders, and survival outcomes rely on BART with R package defaults (Section 5.1), so posterior inferences depend on the flexibility and calibration of these priors.
  • domain assumption Missing data handled as MAR or monotone dropout
    The analysis includes participants with complete information or monotone missingness due to death or dropout, and the discussion states the approach handles MAR but not MNAR dropout.
  • ad hoc to paper Transportability of CARDIA MBP trajectories to ARIC given race and sex (Assumption 7)
    The external-data CMBP adjustment assumes the conditional distribution of cumulative MBP is the same in CARDIA and ARIC after conditioning on race and sex. This is untestable and only point-estimate sensitivity is checked.
invented entities (1)
  • Predicted cumulative mean blood pressure (CMBP) independent evidence
    purpose: Baseline confounder in the ARIC analysis meant to capture pre-baseline hypertension history, which is unmeasured in ARIC.
    CMBP is not a new physical entity but a model-based imputation from CARDIA. It has independent evidence in the sense that cumulative blood pressure can be measured directly in cohorts with long follow-up, though the specific ARIC values are predicted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Bayesian semi-parametric approach to causal mediation for longitudinal mediators and time-to-event outcomes with application to a cardiovascular disease cohort study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJCWUPYI

@misc{pith2026241118739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Bayesian semi-parametric approach to causal mediation for longitudinal mediators and time-to-event outcomes with application to a cardiovascular disease cohort study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJCWUPYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18739}
}
read the original abstract

Causal mediation analysis of observational data is an important tool for investigating the potential causal effects of medications on disease-related risk factors, and on time-to-death (or disease progression) through these risk factors. However, when analyzing data from a cohort study, such analyses are complicated by the longitudinal structure of the risk factors and the presence of time-varying confounders. Leveraging data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort study, we develop a causal mediation approach, using (semi-parametric) Bayesian Additive Regression Tree (BART) models for the longitudinal and survival data. Our framework allows for time-varying exposures, confounders, and mediators, all of which can either be continuous or binary. We also identify and estimate direct and indirect causal effects in the presence of a competing event. We apply our methods to assess how medication, prescribed to target cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, affects the time-to-CVD death.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Avin, C., Shpitser, I., and Pearl, J. (2005). Identifiability of path-specific effects

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Bind, M.-A., Vanderweele, T., Coull, B., and Schwartz, J. (2016). Causal mediation analysis for longitudinal data with exogenous exposure. Biostatistics , 17(1):122--134

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    A., Vock, D

    Boatman, J. A., Vock, D. M., and Koopmeiners, J. S. (2021). Borrowing from supplemental sources to estimate causal effects from a primary data source. Statistics in Medicine , 40(24):5115--5130

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    O., Tong, G., and Li, F

    Chen, X., Harhay, M. O., Tong, G., and Li, F. (2024). A bayesian machine learning approach for estimating heterogeneous survivor causal effects: applications to a critical care trial. The annals of applied statistics , 18(1):350

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A., George, E

    Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., and McCulloch, R. E. (2010). BART : Bayesian additive regression trees. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 4(1):266--298

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Fine, J. P. and Gray, R. J. (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American statistical association , 94(446):496--509

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    D., Cutter, G

    Friedman, G. D., Cutter, G. R., Donahue, R. P., Hughes, G. H., Hulley, S. B., Jacobs Jr, D. R., Liu, K., and Savage, P. J. (1988). CARDIA : study design, recruitment, and some characteristics of the examined subjects. Journal of clinical epidemiology , 41(11):1105--1116

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    and Robins, J

    Hernan, M. and Robins, J. (2024). Causal Inference: What If . Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probab. CRC Press

    2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Investigators, A. (1989). The atherosclerosis risk in communit ( ARIC ) study: design and objectives. American journal of epidemiology , 129(4):687--702

    1989

  2. [10]

    Josefsson, M. (2023). m4ryjo/ GcompBART : GcomBART -v.1.0.0

    2023

  3. [11]

    and Daniels, M

    Josefsson, M. and Daniels, M. J. (2021). Bayesian semi-parametric G -computation for causal inference in a cohort study with MNAR dropout and death. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics , 70(2):398

    2021

  4. [12]

    M., Daniels, M

    Kim, C., Zigler, C. M., Daniels, M. J., Choirat, C., and Roy, J. A. (2019). Bayesian longitudinal causal inference in the analysis of the public health impact of pollutant emissions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00908

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G., Logan, R., and VanderWeele, T

    Lin, S.-H., Young, J. G., Logan, R., and VanderWeele, T. J. (2017). Mediation analysis for a survival outcome with time-varying exposures, mediators, and confounders. Statistics in medicine , 36(26):4153--4166

    2017

  6. [14]

    Linero, A. R. and Zhang, Q. (2022). Mediation analysis using B ayesian tree ensembles. Psychological Methods

    2022

  7. [15]

    Oganisian, A., Mitra, N., and Roy, J. A. (2024). Hierarchical bayesian bootstrap for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 20(1):93--106

    2024

  8. [16]

    J., and Daniels, M

    Roy, J., Lum, K. J., and Daniels, M. J. (2017). A bayesian nonparametric approach to marginal structural models for point treatments and a continuous or survival outcome. Biostatistics , 18(1):32--47

    2017

  9. [17]

    J., and Roy, J

    Roy, S., Daniels, M. J., and Roy, J. (2024). A bayesian nonparametric approach for multiple mediators with applications in mental health studies. Biostatistics , page kxad038

    2024

  10. [18]

    Rubin, D. B. (1981). The B ayesian bootstrap. The annals of statistics , pages 130--134

    1981

  11. [19]

    R., McCulloch, R

    Sparapani, R., Logan, B. R., McCulloch, R. E., and Laud, P. W. (2020). Nonparametric competing risks analysis using B ayesian additive regression trees. Statistical methods in medical research , 29(1):57--77

    2020

  12. [20]

    Sparapani, R., Spanbauer, C., and McCulloch, R. (2019). The BART R package. Accessed on Aug , 21:2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    A., Logan, B

    Sparapani, R. A., Logan, B. R., McCulloch, R. E., and Laud, P. W. (2016). Nonparametric survival analysis using B ayesian additive regression trees ( BART ). Statistics in medicine , 35(16):2741--2753

    2016

  14. [22]

    Taddy, M., Gardner, M., Chen, L., and Draper, D. (2016). A nonparametric bayesian analysis of heterogenous treatment effects in digital experimentation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 34(4):661--672

    2016

  15. [23]

    Tan, Y. V. and Roy, J. (2019). Bayesian additive regression trees and the general BART model. Statistics in medicine , 38(25):5048--5069

    2019

  16. [24]

    VanderWeele, T. J. and Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. (2017). Mediation analysis with time varying exposures and mediators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 79(3):917--938

    2017

  17. [25]

    Vansteelandt, S., Linder, M., Vandenberghe, S., Steen, J., and Madsen, J. (2019). Mediation analysis of time-to-event endpoints accounting for repeatedly measured mediators subject to time-varying confounding. Statistics in medicine , 38(24):4828--4840

    2019

  18. [26]

    Vo, T.-T., Davies-Kershaw, H., Hackett, R., and Vansteelandt, S. (2022). Longitudinal mediation analysis of time-to-event endpoints in the presence of competing risks. Lifetime Data Analysis , pages 1--21

    2022

  19. [27]

    Wang, Z., van der Laan, L., Petersen, M., Gerds, T., Kvist, K., and van der Laan, M. (2023). Targeted maximum likelihood based estimation for longitudinal mediation analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04904

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K., Carey, R

    Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., et al. (2018). 2017 acc/aha/aapa/abc/acpm/ags/apha/ash/aspc/nma/pcna guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluat...

    2018

  21. [29]

    G., Stensrud, M

    Young, J. G., Stensrud, M. J., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., and Hern \'a n, M. A. (2020). A causal framework for classical statistical estimands in failure-time settings with competing events. Statistics in Medicine , 39(8):1199--1236

    2020

  22. [30]

    C., Archie, E

    Zeng, S., Lange, E. C., Archie, E. A., Campos, F. A., Alberts, S. C., and Li, F. (2022). A causal mediation model for longitudinal mediators and survival outcomes with an application to animal behavior. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics , pages 1--22

    2022

  23. [31]

    and van der Laan, M

    Zheng, W. and van der Laan, M. (2017). Longitudinal mediation analysis with time-varying mediators and exposures, with application to survival outcomes. Journal of causal inference , 5(2)

    2017

  24. [32]

    and Song, X

    Zhou, X. and Song, X. (2023). Causal mediation analysis for multivariate longitudinal data and survival outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 30(5):749--760

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.