Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A structural nested rate model for estimating the effects of time-varying exposure on recurrent event outcomes in the presence of death

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new structural nested rate model isolates short-term and delayed causal effects of time-varying exposure on recurrent events while accounting for the competing risk of death.

desk verdict A genuinely useful extension of structural nested models to recurrent events, but the delayed-effect causal estimates lean on an untested parametric death model and a proof slip that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07910 v1 pith:KGIH6CR6 submitted 2025-06-09 stat.ME math.STstat.TH

Daniel Mork , Robert L. Strawderman , Michelle Audirac , Francesca Dominici , Ashkan Ertefaie This is my paper
classification stat.MEmath.STstat.TH MSC 62G0562G2062D2062P10
keywords causalinferencerecurrenteventsstructuralnestedratemodelstime-varyingexposureterminaleventsemiparametricestimationasymptoticlinearityPM2.5cardiovascularhospitalizations
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

The paper aims to estimate the causal effect of a time-varying exposure on a recurrent event outcome such as repeated hospitalizations when some people die before follow-up ends and death is correlated with both exposure and events. Existing inverse-probability-weighted and marginal structural estimators cannot cleanly deliver delayed exposure effects or handle the competing risk of death, so the authors build a class of structural nested rate models in which each lag's effect is blipped out of the observed event rate sequentially. They prove that two estimators, one with a parametric exposure model and one that lets the exposure and nuisance models be fitted by flexible machine-learning tools, are asymptotically linear, meaning their bias shrinks at the usual $\sqrt{n}$ rate and bootstrap confidence intervals are valid. Simulations support the theory, and the method is applied to 299,661 Medicare beneficiaries, estimating that a $10\,\mu$g/m$^3$ increase in PM2.5 over the current and six prior months corresponds to 27.3 additional cardiovascular hospitalizations per 100,000 people, with 95% CI 2.7 to 51.9.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the structural nested cumulative number of recurrent events (SNCURE) model, equation (1): for each lag $m$, the counterfactual event rate under an exposure history with the most recent exposure fixed and later exposures set to zero equals an exposure-free baseline rate minus $A_{k-m}\tilde{\beta}_m\,dt$. Estimation works through nested blip-down estimating equations (4)-(6) that remove estimated effects of more recent exposures before extracting the next lag, using the residual deviation $A_{k-m}-\mu_{km}(t)$ as an instrument. For $m\ge 1$ the equations are weighted by $w_{km}(t)=\prod_{j=0}^{m-1}\exp\{A_{k-j}\nu_{jk}(t)'\alpha_m\}$, a parametric model for the ratio of counterfactual to observed survival that reweights the at-risk set to match the counterfactual population. The robust estimator adds a transformation that subtracts the conditional mean of the blipped process, so both the exposure model and the nuisance baseline rate can be fitted nonparametrically; crossfitting removes the Donsker conditions usually needed for such proofs. The asymptotic linearity results in Theorems 4.3 and 4.4 are obtained by empirical-process expansions and yield explicit influence functions.

What would settle it

Simulate recurrent-event data under a death process that violates the multiplicative weight model of equation (7), for example an additive hazard with exposure-squared terms or non-proportional effects, and check whether the delayed $\tilde{\beta}_m$ estimates remain centered on their true values. The paper's own simulations always fit the weight model in the correct family, so a misspecification comparison would directly test the robustness of the delayed-effect estimators.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the parameters $\tilde{\beta}_m$ in the structural nested rate model (1) are identifiable from observational recurrent-event data and can be estimated at root-$n$ rate in the presence of a possibly dependent terminal event. For $m=0$ the model isolates the short-term effect of the current exposure; for $m>0$ it nests models so that the effect of exposure $m$ months earlier is recovered after blipping down the effects of more recent exposures. The paper's first estimator requires a correctly specified parametric exposure model but leaves the event-rate model unspecified, while the second estimator also allows the exposure and baseline rate functions to be estimated nonparametrically and uses crossfitting. Theorems 4.3 and 4.4 give the influence functions and establish asymptotic linearity under regularity conditions; simulations show $\sqrt{n}$-bias near zero and coverage near the nominal level. The Medicare application reports cumulative lagged effects, with the headline estimate of 27.3 additional CVD hospitalizations per 100,000 beneficiaries for a $10\,\mu$g/m$^3$ increase in PM2.5 over seven months.

Load-bearing premise

The delayed-effect estimates are unbiased only if the parametric formula for how past exposures affect the probability of surviving to each time point is exactly correct, and only if no unmeasured confounders affect both exposure and the recurrent event process; the paper assumes both rather than testing them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Short-term and delayed exposure effects on recurrent events can be estimated separately even when the terminal event is correlated with exposure, which previous recurrent-event estimators did not provide.
  • The robust estimator allows flexible machine-learning estimation of exposure and nuisance models while retaining root-$n$ inference, so the method is applicable when parametric exposure models are hard to specify.
  • The influence-function results extend to the structural nested survival-time setting as a special case, supplying variance formulas where none were available.
  • The Medicare results give a concrete regulatory quantity: limiting monthly average PM2.5 to 9 $\mu$g/m$^3$ would correspond to roughly 528 fewer CVD hospitalizations, a 6.8% reduction, in the study cohort.
  • The provided R package sncure makes the two estimators and bootstrap inference available for other recurrent-event studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the death-process weight model is misspecified in real data, delayed-effect estimates will likely be biased; a natural extension is a sensitivity analysis that fits the death hazard flexibly and compares the resulting $\beta$ estimates.
  • The at-risk process counts hospital days as time at risk; in populations with frequent or long hospitalizations, estimates would be attenuated, so adjusting $Y(t)$ for hospital-stay gaps would be an important refinement.
  • Because the target parameters are marginal effects, the framework maps naturally onto cost and regulatory analyses that compare counterfactual exposure limits, not just single-endpoint studies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a class of semiparametric structural nested rate models (SNCURE) for estimating short-term and delayed causal effects of time-varying exposures on recurrent event outcomes when a correlated terminal event (death) is present. Two estimators are developed: one with parametric exposure models and one that allows nonparametric estimation of the exposure model and baseline rate nuisance functions via crossfitting. The main theoretical claims are asymptotic linearity of both estimators, with influence functions stated in Theorems 4.3 and 4.4. The methods are evaluated in simulations and applied to estimate effects of monthly PM2.5 exposure on recurrent cardiovascular hospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries, reporting a cumulative effect over six months of 27.3 additional hospitalizations per 100,000 (95% CI 2.7, 51.9). An R package, sncure, is provided.

Significance. If the theoretical claims are correct, this is a useful and novel contribution: it extends structural nested cumulative survival models to recurrent event processes in the presence of a terminal event, and it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first approach to estimate both short-term and delayed marginal causal effects in this setting. The explicit influence-function derivations go beyond prior work on structural nested survival models, and the availability of software and the realistic Medicare application increase the paper's practical value. The asymptotic results are supported by supplement proofs and the simulation study covers both linear and nonlinear exposure mechanisms. However, the delayed-effect estimators (m≥1) rest on a parametric additive-hazard model for the death process whose misspecification is never examined, and a key displayed argument for unbiasedness in Remark 4.2 contains an algebraic error. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claim and need to be addressed before the results can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Remark 4.2] The displayed factorization justifying unbiasedness for m≥1 is algebraically incorrect. For a counting-process increment X=dN^{(A_{k-1},0)}(t), which is zero whenever D^{(A_{k-1},0)}<t, the correct identity is E[X | A_k,L_k,D^{(A_{k-1},0)}≥t] = E[X | A_k,L_k,D^{(A_{k-1},0)}≥k] / P(D^{(A_{k-1},0)}≥t | A_k,L_k,D^{(A_{k-1},0)}≥k), not the product shown in the remark. The same error appears in the second equality. Because this remark is the stated justification for the unbiasedness of estimating equations (5) and (6), the proof of Theorems 4.3 and 4.4 for m≥1 is not rigorous as written; the authors should provide a correct derivation of the moment condition P0[Y(t)w_{km}(t)Δ_{km}(t)dN_0^{(m)}(t)]=0, for example by showing how the weight in (7) converts the observed risk-set indicator into the counterfactual survival probability.
  2. [Eq. (7) and Section 5] For every m≥1, the estimating equations require the weight w_{km}(t) in (7) to equal the true ratio of counterfactual to observed survival, which is equivalent to assuming an additive-hazard structural nested cumulative survival model for the death process. This is a nuisance assumption, not the target of inference, and it is not probed by the simulation: the death intensity in Section 5 is λ̃(t)=0.02A_k+0.01A_{k-1}+Q exp{L_{1k}+L_{2k}-1}, which is exactly the model class that makes (7) correct, and α_m is always fit under this true model. Consequently, the simulation provides no evidence on finite-sample behavior when death follows, say, a proportional hazards model, under which the moment conditions for β_m (m≥1) would generally fail. The headline cumulative PM2.5 estimate in Section 6 accumulates β_1 through β_6 and therefore inherits this untested sensitivity. The authors should add a misspecification scenario for the death model or clearly state this limitation and temper the corresponding conclusions.
  3. [Theorem 4.4] The description of the second estimator as 'robust' is more limited than the text suggests: Theorem 4.4 relaxes parametric assumptions on μ_{km} and dρ_{km}, but the weight function w_{km}(t) remains a parametric model estimated under Assumption 2.b. Since the unbiasedness of the m≥1 estimating equations depends on correct specification of this weight, the robust estimator is not robust to misspecification of the death process. The abstract and Section 7 should be revised to state this qualification, and the practical implication for the Medicare analysis should be acknowledged.
  4. [Section 5] The simulation includes non-administrative censoring generated from λ̃_C(t)=0.2 exp{L_{1k}+L_{2k}-1}, where L_k is time-varying and is used to generate exposure A_k. Section 4.5 states that, under such censoring, the original model holds only under two conditions, and that the second condition can be relaxed by multiplying w_{km}(t) by a censoring weight w^C_{km}(t). The simulation description does not state whether this censoring weight was used. If it was not used, the censoring is informative (because L_k is correlated with exposure), and this could bias the reported results; if it was used, the authors should say so explicitly and describe how w^C was estimated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7] The sentence 'they consistent and asymptotically normal' is missing a verb; it should read 'they are consistent and asymptotically normal.'
  2. [Reference list] The reference 'World Heath Organization' should be 'World Health Organization'.
  3. [Equation (13)] The notation in (13) is confusing: the counterfactual exposure history a* is defined as A*_{k'}=A_{k'}∧a, but the summation index k and the counterfactual level a are not clearly distinguished from the scalar exposure threshold used in the intervention description; please clarify the notation.
  4. [Table 1] In the complex-exposure scenario, the parametric estimator's √n-bias for β_0 increases from -0.69 at n=2000 to -0.85 at n=5000, which is consistent with misspecification-induced inconsistency; this is not discussed in the text and should be interpreted explicitly.
  5. [Section 5] The simulation description states that exposures are generated using two scenarios and then 'normalized such that A_k∈[0,1]', but it is not specified whether the normalization is applied per subject, per time, or globally; this affects interpretation of the scaling factor c in the event rate and should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SNCURE estimators are derived from the structural model via recursive G-estimation, and the only author self-citation (Lemma S1) is restated and proved in the supplement.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The target parameters β_m are defined by the structural nested rate model (1), and the estimating equations (4)-(6) are constructed to be unbiased under Assumption 1 and the weight model (7). Plugging β_0,...,β_{m-1} into later equations is sequential G-estimation, not a circular reduction; each β_m is identified from a distinct moment condition. The asymptotic linearity proofs in Supplementary Sections S2 and S3 proceed by induction and linearization, with all nuisance-parameter contributions accounted for in the influence functions. Lemma S1 is credited to Ertefaie et al. (2021), a co-author's paper, but the lemma is restated and fully proved in the supplement, so the citation does not carry the argument. The robust estimator's reliance on the parametric weight (7) for m≥1 is a substantive additive-hazard death-model assumption inherited from Seaman et al. (2020); if misspecified, delayed estimates would be biased, and the simulation generates death from that model class so it does not stress-test the assumption. That is a limitation, not a circular step, because the weights depend on death-process parameters α, not on the target β. The headline 27.3 cumulative effect is a function of estimated β_m, not a fitted value relabeled as a prediction. No step in the paper reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's validity rests on unverifiable causal assumptions, a structural additive-rate blip model, a parametric death-weight model imported from Seaman et al. (2020), external-exposure timing, and high-dimensional rate conditions for the nonparametric estimator. No new physical or statistical entities beyond standard counterfactual random variables are introduced. The main data-fitted parameters are the nuisance death-effect parameters alpha_m that enter the weights, plus implementation choices for cross-fitting and pseudo-time binning.

free parameters (3)
  • Death process effect parameters alpha_m = alpha_0 = 33.61 (SD 15.66) per 100,000 in Medicare analysis; other alpha_m estimated similarly
    Used to construct weights w_km(t) in Eq. (7); required for the validity of the delayed-effect estimating equations.
  • V-fold crossfitting folds V = 5
    Chosen by hand in simulation and data analysis; an implementation choice that affects variance but not the model itself.
  • Pseudo-time bins m-tilde = 5 in simulation; piecewise constant per month in data analysis
    Used to approximate time-varying exposure and nuisance functions; in the data analysis the functions are assumed piecewise constant between landmark times.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Consistency, no unmeasured confounding, positivity (Assumption 1a-c)
    Unverifiable causal assumptions that link observed data to counterfactual processes; if they fail, the estimated beta_m are not causal effects.
  • domain assumption Additive linear blip model (Eq. 1): E[dN(A_{k-m},0)] - E[dN(A_{k-m-1},0)] = A_{k-m} beta_m dt
    The effect of exposure on the recurrent event rate is assumed to be additive, linear, and independent of covariates and time within month; this is the scientific model being fit.
  • domain assumption Parametric death weight model (Eq. 7): w_km(t) = prod exp{A_{k-j} nu_{jk}(t)' alpha_m}
    The counterfactual survival ratio is assumed to have this parametric exponential form; misspecification biases the delayed-effect estimators for m>=1.
  • domain assumption External exposure assumption: A_k is available regardless of death or censoring
    Exposures like PM2.5 are external; for internal time-varying treatments this assumption fails.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3 rate conditions for nonparametric nuisance estimators
    Asymptotic linearity of the robust estimator requires these unverifiable rate conditions; no primitive conditions or validation for SuperLearner/LightGBM are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A structural nested rate model for estimating the effects of time-varying exposure on recurrent event outcomes in the presence of death." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGIH6CR6

@misc{pith2026250607910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A structural nested rate model for estimating the effects of time-varying exposure on recurrent event outcomes in the presence of death},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGIH6CR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07910}
}
read the original abstract

Assessing the causal effect of time-varying exposures on recurrent event processes is challenging in the presence of a terminating event. Our objective is to estimate both the short-term and delayed marginal causal effects of exposures on recurrent events while addressing the bias of a potentially correlated terminal event. Existing estimators based on marginal structural models and proportional rate models are unsuitable for estimating delayed marginal causal effects for many reasons, and furthermore, they do not account for competing risks associated with a terminating event. To address these limitations, we propose a class of semiparametric structural nested recurrent event models and two estimators of short-term and delayed marginal causal effects of exposures. We establish the asymptotic linearity of these two estimators under regularity conditions through the novel use of modern empirical process and semiparametric efficiency theory. We examine the performance of these estimators via simulation and provide an R package sncure to apply our methods in real data scenarios. Finally, we present the utility of our methods in the context of a large epidemiological study of 299,661 Medicare beneficiaries, where we estimate the effects of fine particulate matter air pollution on recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. visualizes the study design in the context of our data illustration. We consider n individuals indexed by i and observed in continuous time, t. Each individual is followed for a baseline period that spans M months and then during a study period that begins at time t = 0 until t = τ . We stop following an individual early (i.e., before time τ ) if they die or leave our study cohort. The time of death or censoring is … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effects of PM2.5 exposure on CVD hospitalizations. as well as exposures from 5-6 months prior. Although individual lag effects, βˆm, are not significantly different from null, there is evidence that continued exposure over the course of several months (i.e., P6 m=0 βˆm) corresponds to a significant increase in the rate of CVD hospitalizations. Additional results of the analysis and data limitations are given in the … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Imbens, G

    Athey, S. and Imbens, G. W. (2006). Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econometrica , 74(2):431--497

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C

    Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., Diez-Roux, A. V., Holguin, F., Hong, Y., Luepker, R. V., Mittleman, M. A., Peters, A., Siscovick, D., Smith, S. C., Whitsel, L., and Kaufman, J. D. (2010). Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease . Circulation , 121(21):2331--2378

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    and Zhang, B

    Chen, S. and Zhang, B. (2023). Estimating and improving dynamic treatment regimes with a time-varying instrumental variable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 85(2):427--453

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Chen, X., Wang, Q., Cai, J., Shankar, V., Chen, X., Wang, Q., Cai, J., and Shankar, V. (2012). Semiparametric additive marginal regression models for multiple type recurrent events . Lifetime Data Analysis 2012 18:4 , 18(4):504--527

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    J., Lawless, J

    Cook, R. J., Lawless, J. F., Lakhal-Chaieb, L., and Lee, K.-A. (2009). Robust estimation of mean functions and treatment effects for recurrent events under event-dependent censoring and termination: application to skeletal complications in cancer metastatic to bone. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 104(485):60--75

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    W., Arden Pope, C., Dockery, D

    Correia, A. W., Arden Pope, C., Dockery, D. W., Wang, Y., Ezzati, M., and Dominici, F. (2013). The Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the United States: An Analysis of 545 US counties for the period 2000 to 2007 . Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) , 24(1):23

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Cui, Y., Michael, H., Tanser, F., and Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. (2023). Instrumental variable estimation of the marginal structural cox model for time-varying treatments. Biometrika , 110(1):101--118

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    B., Choirat, C., Koutrakis, P., Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Mickley, L

    Di, Q., Amini, H., Shi, L., Kloog, I., Silvern, R., Kelly, J., Sabath, M. B., Choirat, C., Koutrakis, P., Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Mickley, L. J., and Schwartz, J. (2019). An ensemble-based model of PM2.5 concentration across the contiguous United States with high spatiotemporal resolution . Environment International , 130:104909

    work page 2019

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Di, Q., Wang, Y., Zanobetti, A., Wang, Y., Koutrakis, P., Choirat, C., Dominici, F., and Schwartz, J. D. (2017). Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population . New England Journal of Medicine , 376(26):2513--2522

    2017

  2. [10]

    J., and Vansteelandt, S

    Dukes, O., Martinussen, T., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., and Vansteelandt, S. (2019a). On doubly robust estimation of the hazard difference. Biometrics , 75(1):100--109

    2019

  3. [11]

    J., and Vansteelandt, S

    Dukes, O., Martinussen, T., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., and Vansteelandt, S. (2019b). On doubly robust estimation of the hazard difference . Biometrics , 75(1):100--109

    2019

  4. [12]

    R., Oslin, D., and Strawderman, R

    Ertefaie, A., McKay, J. R., Oslin, D., and Strawderman, R. L. (2021). Robust q-learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 116(533):368--381

    2021

  5. [13]

    S., Flory, J

    Ertefaie, A., Small, D. S., Flory, J. H., and Hennessy, S. (2017). A tutorial on the use of instrumental variables in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety , 26(4):357--367

    2017

  6. [14]

    Gerard, H., Brunekreef, B., Fischer, P., and van Winjnen, J. (2001). The Association between Air Pollution and Heart Failure, Arr... : Epidemiology . Epidemiology , pages 355--357

    2001

  7. [15]

    and Lin, D

    Ghosh, D. and Lin, D. Y. (2002). Marginal regression models for recurrent and terminal events. Statistica Sinica , pages 663--688

    2002

  8. [16]

    Han, S. (2023). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes and partial welfare ordering. Journal of the American Statistical Association , pages 1--11

    2023

  9. [17]

    A., Cole, S

    Hern \'a n, M. A., Cole, S. R., Margolick, J., Cohen, M., and Robins, J. M. (2005). Structural accelerated failure time models for survival analysis in studies with time-varying treatments. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety , 14(7):477--491

    2005

  10. [18]

    K., Ravn, H., S rup, S., and Andersen, P

    Jensen, A. K., Ravn, H., S rup, S., and Andersen, P. (2016). A marginal structural model for recurrent events in the presence of time-dependent confounding: non-specific effects of vaccines on child hospitalisations . Statistics in Medicine , 35(27):5051--5069

    2016

  11. [19]

    P., deSouza, P., Wu, X., Braun, D., and Nethery, R

    Josey, K. P., deSouza, P., Wu, X., Braun, D., and Nethery, R. (2023). Estimating a Causal Exposure Response Function with a Continuous Error-Prone Exposure: A Study of Fine Particulate Matter and All-Cause Mortality . Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Stat...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu, T.-Y. (2017). LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 30

    2017

  13. [21]

    A., Spiegelman, D., Szpiro, A

    Kioumourtzoglou, M. A., Spiegelman, D., Szpiro, A. A., Sheppard, L., Kaufman, J. D., Yanosky, J. D., Williams, R., Laden, F., Hong, B., and Suh, H. (2014). Exposure measurement error in PM2.5 health effects studies: A pooled analysis of eight personal exposure validation studi...

    2014

  14. [22]

    M., Drory, Y., Steinberg, D

    Koton, S., Molshatzki, N., Yuval , Myers, V., Broday, D. M., Drory, Y., Steinberg, D. M., and Gerber, Y. (2013). Cumulative exposure to particulate matter air pollution and long-term post-myocardial infarction outcomes . Preventive Medicine , 57(4):339--344

    2013

  15. [23]

    Lahiri, S. N. (2013). Resampling methods for dependent data . Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  16. [24]

    Y., Follmann, D

    Li, S., Sun, Y., Huang, C. Y., Follmann, D. A., and Krause, R. (2016). Recurrent event data analysis with intermittently observed time-varying covariates . Statistics in Medicine , 35(18):3049--3065

    2016

  17. [25]

    Liu, H., Tian, Y., Cao, Y., Song, J., Huang, C., Xiang, X., Li, M., and Hu, Y. (2018). Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admissions and readmissions for acute myocardial infarction in 26 Chinese cities . Chemosphere , 192:282--288

    2018

  18. [26]

    A., and Huang, X

    Liu, L., Wolfe, R. A., and Huang, X. (2004). Shared Frailty Models for Recurrent Events and a Terminal Event . Biometrics , 60(3):747--756

    2004

  19. [27]

    Martinussen, T., Vansteelandt, S., Gerster, M., and Hjelmborg, J. v. B. (2011). Estimation of direct effects for survival data by using the aalen additive hazards model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 73(5):773--788

    2011

  20. [28]

    A., Siscovick, D

    Miller, K. A., Siscovick, D. S., Sheppard, L., Shepherd, K., Sullivan, J. H., Anderson, G. L., and Kaufman, J. D. (2007). Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women . New England Journal of Medicine , 356(5):447--458

    2007

  21. [29]

    J., and Butler, S

    Miloslavsky, M., Keles, S., van der Laan, M. J., and Butler, S. (2004). Recurrent Events Analysis in the Presence of Time-Dependent Covariates and Dependent Censoring . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology , 66(1):239--257

    2004

  22. [30]

    A., Page, J

    Picciotto, S., Hern \'a n, M. A., Page, J. H., Young, J. G., and Robins, J. M. (2012). Structural nested cumulative failure time models to estimate the effects of interventions. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 107(499):886--900

    2012

  23. [31]

    and Neophytou, A

    Picciotto, S. and Neophytou, A. M. (2016). G-estimation of structural nested models: recent applications in two subfields of epidemiology. Current Epidemiology Reports , 3(3):242--251

    2016

  24. [32]

    Robins, J. M. and Greenland, S. (1994). Adjusting for differential rates of prophylaxis therapy for pcp in high-versus low-dose azt treatment arms in an aids randomized trial. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 89(427):737--749

    1994

  25. [33]

    E., Zeng, D., and Cai, J

    Schaubel, D. E., Zeng, D., and Cai, J. (2006). A semiparametric additive rates model for recurrent event data . Lifetime Data Analysis , 12(4):389--406

    2006

  26. [34]

    Schaubel, D. E. and Zhang, M. (2010). Estimating treatment effects on the marginal recurrent event mean in the presence of a terminating event. Lifetime data analysis , 16(4):451--477

    2010

  27. [35]

    Seaman, S., Dukes, O., Keogh, R., and Vansteelandt, S. (2020). Adjusting for time-varying confounders in survival analysis using structural nested cumulative survival time models. Biometrics , 76(2):472--483

    2020

  28. [36]

    S., Langrish, J

    Shah, A. S., Langrish, J. P., Nair, H., McAllister, D. A., Hunter, A. L., Donaldson, K., Newby, D. E., and Mills, N. L. (2013). Global association of air pollution and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis . The Lancet , 382(9897):1039--1048

    2013

  29. [37]

    Strawderman, R. (2000). Estimating the mean of an increasing stochastic process at a censored stopping time. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 95(452):1192--1208

    2000

  30. [38]

    W., and Plante, J.-F

    Su, C.-L., Platt, R. W., and Plante, J.-F. (2022). Causal inference for recurrent event data using pseudo-observations . Biostatistics , 23(1):189--206

    2022

  31. [39]

    L., Steele, R., and Shrier, I

    Su, C. L., Steele, R., and Shrier, I. (2020). Doubly robust estimation and causal inference for recurrent event data . Statistics in Medicine , 39(17):2324--2338

    2020

  32. [40]

    and Kang, F

    Sun, L. and Kang, F. (2012). An additive-multiplicative rates model for recurrent event data with informative terminal event . Lifetime Data Analysis 2012 19:1 , 19(1):117--137

    2012

  33. [41]

    Sun, L., Zhu, L., and Sun, J. (2009). Regression analysis of multivariate recurrent event data with time-varying covariate effects . Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 100(10):2214--2223

    2009

  34. [42]

    S., Ruiz-Negr \'o n, N., Moran, A

    Tajeu, G. S., Ruiz-Negr \'o n, N., Moran, A. E., Zhang, Z., Kolm, P., Weintraub, W. S., Bress, A. P., and Bellows, B. K. (2024). Cost of cardiovascular disease event and cardiovascular disease treatment--related complication hospitalizations in the united states. Circulation: ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Environmental Protection Agency (2022)

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . Technical report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    2022

  36. [44]

    and Sjolander, A

    Vansteelandt, S. and Sjolander, A. (2016). Revisiting g-estimation of the Effect of a Time-varying Exposure Subject to Time-varying Confounding . Epidemiologic Methods , 5(1):37--56

    2016

  37. [45]

    o rmann, A., Kulmala, M., Lanki, T., L \

    Von Klot, S., Peters, A., Aalto, P., Bellander, T., Berglind, N., D'Ippoliti, D., Elosua, R., H \" o rmann, A., Kulmala, M., Lanki, T., L \" o wel, H., Pekkanen, J., Picciotto, S., Sunyer, J., and Forastiere, F. (2005). Ambient Air Pollution Is Associated With Increased Risk o...

    2005

  38. [46]

    D., Shtein, A., Shi, L., Yang, J., Peralta, A

    Wei, Y., Qiu, X., Yazdi, M. D., Shtein, A., Shi, L., Yang, J., Peralta, A. A., Coull, B. A., and Schwartz, J. D. (2022). The Impact of Exposure Measurement Error on the Estimated Concentration– Response Relationship between Long-Term Exposure to PM2:5 and Mortality . Environme...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Wilks, D. S. (1997). Resampling hypothesis tests for autocorrelated fields. Journal of Climate , 10(1):65--82

    1997

  40. [48]

    Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease

    World Heath Organization (2016). Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease

    2016

  41. [49]

    Wu, X., Braun, D., Schwartz, J., Kioumourtzoglou, M.-A., and Dominici, F. (2020). Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science advances , 6(29):eaba5692

    2020

  42. [50]

    Ye, T., Ertefaie, A., Flory, J., Hennessy, S., and Small, D. S. (2023). Instrumented difference-in-differences. Biometrics , 79(2):569--581

    2023

  43. [51]

    D., and Schaubel, D

    Ye, Y., Kalbfleisch, J. D., and Schaubel, D. E. (2007). Semiparametric Analysis of Correlated Recurrent and Terminal Events . Biometrics , 63(1):78--87

    2007

  44. [52]

    M., Williams, L

    Yu, Z., Liu, L., Bravata, D. M., Williams, L. S., and Tepper, R. S. (2013). A semiparametric recurrent events model with time-varying coefficients . Statistics in Medicine , 32(6):1016--1026

    2013

  45. [53]

    and Schwartz, J

    Zanobetti, A. and Schwartz, J. (2007). Particulate air pollution, progression, and survival after myocardial infarction . Environmental Health Perspectives , 115(5):769--775

    2007

  46. [54]

    Zhang, H., Yi, M., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Xiao, K., Si, J., Shi, N., Sun, L., Miao, Z., Zhao, T., Sun, X., Liu, Z., Gao, J., and Li, J. (2022). Air pollution and recurrence of cardiovascular events after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction . Atherosclerosis , 342:1--8

    2022

  47. [55]

    M., Li, D., Cai, M., Wang, C., Zhang, Z., Vaughn, M

    Zhang, S., Chen, L., Qian, Z. M., Li, D., Cai, M., Wang, C., Zhang, Z., Vaughn, M. G., Keith, A. E., Li, H., and Lin, H. (2023). Associations between air pollution and the risk of first admission and multiple readmissions for cardiovascular diseases . Heart , 0:2023--322682

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.