Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Causal Mediation Analysis for Zero-inflated Mixture Mediators

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper develops a causal mediation analysis for zero-inflated mixture mediators that splits the indirect effect into a numerical-change component and a zero-to-non-zero component, and estimates both consistently with an EM algorithm.

desk verdict A genuinely new finite-mixture extension for zero-inflated mediators with correct algebra and a usable EM algorithm, but the false-zero mechanism needs sensitivity analysis before the applied conclusions can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15164 v1 pith:U6YGNCGT submitted 2025-07-21 stat.ME

Meilin Jiang , Seonjoo Lee , A. James O'Malley , Pengfei Li , Zhigang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62D2062F1062H30
keywords causalinferencemediationanalysiszero-inflatedmediatorfinitemixtureEMalgorithmsequentialmediatorstwo-parteffect
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

Mediators in biomedical data often carry an excess of zeros, and the non-zero values may come from several underlying subpopulations, producing multi-modal distributions. The paper proposes treating such a mediator as a zero-inflated finite mixture and deriving causal mediation effects under that model. It splits the total natural indirect effect into two parts: one driven by numerical changes in an already-present mediator, and one driven by the binary switch from zero to non-zero. With an EM algorithm that handles unknown mixture membership and distinguishes true zeros from false zeros, the method yields closed-form effect formulas for log-normal, Poisson, and negative binomial mixtures. Simulations with 30-70% zeros show low bias and coverage near 0.95, and an application to adolescent brain connectivity finds significant indirect effects that a single-distribution method misses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-part zero-inflated mixture density together with the false-zero observation mechanism. The point mass $\Delta$ at $m=0$ separates the mediator's true absence from its positive distribution, and the positive part is modeled as a $K$-component finite mixture (log-normal, Poisson, or negative binomial), so multi-modal non-zero values are not forced into one distribution. The observing mechanism $P(M^*=0\mid M)=\exp(-\eta^2 M)$ for $M\le L$ and $0$ otherwise generates false zeros, and in the EM algorithm the latent variable $C$ (component membership, with $C=0$ for true absence) lets the E-step assign each observed zero to either true-zero or false-zero status, while non-zero observations are assigned to mixture components. This machinery yields the closed-form effect decomposition $\mathrm{NIE}=(\beta_1+\beta_5 x_2)[\text{difference in mediator means}] + (\beta_2+\beta_4 x_2)(\Delta_{x_1}-\Delta_{x_2})$, separating the numerical and binary channels.

What would settle it

Generate data from a zero-inflated two-component mediator using a false-zero rule that is not of the assumed form (for example, a step function of $M$, or a threshold $L$ that varies by subject), fit the proposed model with the assumed mechanism and a fixed $L$, and check whether the resulting NIE estimates fall outside the claimed 95% coverage level. If the bias or coverage degradation is large, the claim of valid inference is falsified for that misspecification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the counterfactual framework, the paper defines the mediator as $M = B\cdot M_p$, where $B$ indicates a true non-zero value and $M_p$ is the positive part, then writes the average natural indirect effect as $\mathrm{NIE}=\mathrm{NIE}_1+\mathrm{NIE}_2$. NIE1 is the effect transmitted through the numerical magnitude of the mediator, and NIE2 is the effect transmitted through the zero-to-non-zero change in $B$. With a zero-inflated finite-mixture density $f(m;\theta)=\Delta$ at $m=0$ and $(1-\Delta)\sum_k \psi_k G_k(m;\theta_k)$ for $m>0$, and a false-zero mechanism $P(M^*=0\mid M)=\exp(-\eta^2 M)$ for $M\le L$, the paper derives closed-form expressions for NIE1, NIE2, and NDE for zero-inflated log-normal, Poisson, and negative binomial mixtures. Estimation uses an EM algorithm with latent mixture membership $C$ and latent true/false zero status; model selection picks the number of components and distribution family by BIC. The paper's core claim is that this pipeline provides unbiased estimates and valid inference for the mediation effects across zero proportions from about 30% to 70%, whereas the non-mixture method and the marginal structural model comparison degrade substantially as zeros increase.

Load-bearing premise

The false-zero mechanism is correctly specified: a truly positive mediator value is observed as zero with probability $\exp(-\eta^2 M)$ only when $M\le L$, and the threshold $L$ is known; if that mechanism is wrong, the mediation effect estimates can be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the proposed model, zero-inflated multi-modal mediators no longer have to be collapsed to a single distribution, so mediation estimates remain near unbiased even at 60-70% zeros.
  • The NIE1/NIE2 split gives practitioners a two-target view: one number tells whether an exposure affects outcomes by changing how much mediator is present, the other whether it works by creating or eliminating a non-zero value.
  • Count-valued mediators, including overdispersed counts, are handled directly by the zero-inflated Poisson and negative binomial versions of the model.
  • In the brain-connectivity application, the two-component model selected by BIC detects significant total indirect effects where the single-distribution comparator shows null results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the false-zero probability is specified up to a known threshold $L$ and a single parameter $\eta$, a practical user should treat $L$ as a sensitivity parameter; the paper's application fixes $L=20$ by domain expertise, and nothing in the identifiability discussion protects against a misspecified $L$.
  • A natural stress test would be to simulate under the alternative censored/fixed-threshold zero mechanism that the paper contrasts with its random false-zero mechanism, and to compare bias and coverage across those data-generating processes.
  • The same decomposition could be pushed toward high-dimensional mediators with regularized EM estimation, an extension flagged but not developed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new causal mediation analysis method for zero-inflated mixture mediators. The mediator is modeled as a product of a binary zero indicator and a positive continuous or count variable, with positive values arising from a finite mixture of log-normal, Poisson, or negative binomial distributions. Overlaid on this is a probabilistic false-zero observation mechanism, P(M*=0|M)=exp(-η^2 M) for M≤L, which distinguishes true zeros from measurement-error zeros. Mediation effects are defined under a counterfactual framework and decomposed into NIE1 (numerical change) and NIE2 (binary change from zero to non-zero), with closed-form expressions derived for each mediator distribution. Estimation is performed using an EM algorithm that treats mixture membership and true/false zero status as latent variables, with model selection via BIC. Simulations under the true mechanism show small bias and coverage near 0.95 for the proposed method across three distributions and various zero proportions, and an application to ABCD brain connectivity data illustrates the method's practical use.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper fills a real gap: existing mediation methods for zero-inflated mediators do not accommodate multi-modal positive parts, and standard MSM or non-mixture methods are shown to be severely biased in the simulation comparisons. The two-part decomposition of the indirect effect is clearly useful for interpreting the mechanism, and the authors provide an R package ('MAZE') for implementation. Strengths include explicit algebraic derivations of the effect formulas, a complete EM algorithm for three model families, and a comparative simulation study that includes 30-70% zero proportions. The limitations, however, are nontrivial: the false-zero mechanism is a strong structural assumption, and the paper does not test robustness to its misspecification. The central claim of unbiasedness and valid inference is therefore conditional on this untested mechanism, which tempers the significance until addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Section 6] The false-zero observation mechanism P(M*=0|M)=exp(-η^2 M) for M≤L is the key structural assumption that separates true zeros from false zeros in the likelihood. The simulation studies in Tables 1-3 generate data under exactly this mechanism, so they cannot validate robustness to misspecification. The Discussion (Section 8) states that this mechanism 'plays an important role' but only lists alternative mechanisms as future work. I request a sensitivity analysis that varies L, uses alternative functional forms (e.g., exp(-η M) or a detection-limit/censored-zero mechanism), or simulates under a misspecified mechanism, and reports the resulting bias and coverage of NIE1, NIE2, and NIE. Without such an analysis, the claim of unbiased mediation effect estimates is conditional on an untested assumption.
  2. [Section 5.3] The M-step is described only as 'maximize Q(Θ|Θ0)' with no details on how the maximization is performed. The objective function involves integrals over m for false zeros (Section 5.1) and parameters include Δ, ψ_k, β, δ^2, mixture parameters, and the false-zero parameter η. For a methods paper introducing a new EM algorithm, the algorithmic details are necessary for reproducibility. The paper should provide explicit optimization steps, or at least describe the numerical strategy (e.g., Newton-Raphson with numerical integration, EM-gradient updates) and the handling of the integrals for the ZILoNM and the finite sums for the ZIPM and ZINBM cases.
  3. [Section 6] The simulation study uses only 100 replications per setting. With 100 replications, the Monte Carlo standard error for a coverage probability of 0.95 is about 0.022, so reported values near 0.90 (e.g., Table 1, 70% zeros, NIE coverage 0.91; Table 2, 70% zeros, NIE coverage 0.91) are not statistically distinguishable from 0.95 but are also consistent with genuine undercoverage. The paper should either increase the number of replications (e.g., 500-1000) or report Monte Carlo confidence intervals for the coverage estimates, and temper the claim of 'coverage probability close to the nominal level' in the high-zero scenarios.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A.1.1] In the derivation of NIE1, there is a typographical error: 'f(m;x2),σ)' should read 'f(m;x2)' (parentheses misplaced).
  2. [Section 7 and Table 4] The application tests multiple exposure-mediator pairs (7 CBCL scales × 2 mediators) but Table 4 reports only selected results 'before adjustment for multiple testing.' Please clarify how many models were fit and consider tempering the interpretation of individual p-values given the lack of multiplicity control.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (10)] In the denominator of the positive-part density, the expression ∑ψ_k(1-exp(-λ_k)) could be rewritten as 1-∑ψ_k exp(-λ_k) to more clearly indicate the zero-truncation normalizing constant.
  4. [Section 8] The sentence 'There are several possible extensions can be made' is ungrammatical; it should read 'Several possible extensions can be made.'
  5. [Figure 1] The density curves in Figure 1 lack a legend or description of the smoothing bandwidth; please specify how the densities were estimated.
  6. [Section 6] The text says 'the non-mixture method12 was implemented using the R package MAZE,' but reference [12] is a journal article; it would be clearer to state that the package accompanies the paper or provide a URL directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mediation effect formulas are derived algebraically from the stated model, and the false-zero mechanism is an explicit modeling assumption rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: specify the outcome model (eq. 5), the zero-inflated mixture mediator densities (eqs. 6-15), and the false-zero observation mechanism (Section 4.4); plug these into the counterfactual definitions (eqs. 2-4); and integrate to obtain NIE1, NIE2, and NDE formulas (Section 4.5 and Appendix A). These formulas are algebraic consequences of the assumed model, not quantities fitted to a target result. The EM algorithm maximizes the complete-data likelihood (eqs. 20-22) with respect to the model parameters, and the mediation-effect estimates are delta-method functions of the MLEs. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction. The NIE = NIE1 + NIE2 decomposition is an identity attributed to Steen et al. and Daniel et al.; the mixture extension is independently derived in this paper. The false-zero mechanism is adapted from the authors' prior work (ref. 12) and is transparently presented as an assumption; the Discussion explicitly says the mechanism 'plays an important role' and lists alternative mechanisms as future work. This is a limitation and a robustness concern, not a circular derivation. The simulations generate data from the same mechanism used for estimation, so they validate estimation under the model rather than the model's external validity, but that is a standard self-consistency check, not circular reasoning. Self-citation here is borrowing a stated assumption, not using an unverified self-cited theorem to force the paper's conclusions. No circular step is present in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the six counterfactual identification assumptions in Section 4.6, all of which are standard but untestable from observational data alone. The method also assumes a specific false-zero mechanism and a particular set of mixture families. The model parameters are fitted via maximum likelihood, and the choice of threshold L and the number of components K are determined by hand or by BIC, respectively. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond standard latent variables.

free parameters (6)
  • threshold L = 20 (set by domain expertise)
    Known constant in the false-zero mechanism; chosen by hand in both the simulation and the ABCD application.
  • false-zero parameter eta = estimated, not reported
    Controls the probability of observing a false zero; part of the likelihood and estimated by the EM algorithm.
  • mixing weights psi_k = estimated
    Mixture component probabilities for the positive part of the mediator; estimated by the EM algorithm.
  • dispersion parameter r (ZINBM) = estimated
    Negative binomial dispersion, assumed common across components and independent of X; estimated from data.
  • number of mixture components K = selected by BIC
    The order of the finite mixture is unknown and chosen via BIC among K=1,2,3 and among the three distribution families.
  • outcome model coefficients (beta) and variance delta^2 = estimated
    Regression coefficients and error variance in the linear outcome model; estimated jointly with the mediator parameters.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption No unmeasured confounding of the X-Y association given covariates Z (assumption 16).
    Stated in Section 4.6 as assumption 1; needed for identifying the total causal effect.
  • domain assumption No unmeasured confounding of the mediator-outcome association given X and Z (assumption 17).
    Stated in Section 4.6 as assumption 2; required for identifying the indirect effect.
  • domain assumption No unmeasured confounding of the X-mediator association given Z (assumption 18).
    Stated in Section 4.6 as assumption 3; required for identifying mediator counterfactuals.
  • domain assumption No post-baseline confounders of the mediator-outcome association affected by X (assumption 19).
    Stated in Section 4.6 as assumption 4; needed for the cross-world counterfactual independence.
  • domain assumption The effect of the first mediator B on the second mediator M is unconfounded given X and Z (assumption 5).
    Stated in Section 4.6; required for the sequential mediator interpretation.
  • domain assumption No confounder of the B-M effect is affected by X (assumption 6).
    Stated in Section 4.6; required for identifiability of the sequential effects.
  • domain assumption The outcome model is correctly specified as a linear Gaussian regression with interactions (equation 5).
    Section 4; the closed-form mediation formulas are derived from this model, so misspecification would bias the effects.
  • domain assumption The mediator distribution is correctly specified as a finite mixture of log-normal, Poisson, or negative binomial components, with the false-zero mechanism P(M*=0|M)=exp(-eta^2 M) for M<=L.
    Sections 4.1-4.4; the likelihood and the EM derivation depend on these distributional forms, and no robustness check is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal Mediation Analysis for Zero-inflated Mixture Mediators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6YGNCGT

@misc{pith2026250715164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal Mediation Analysis for Zero-inflated Mixture Mediators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6YGNCGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15164}
}
read the original abstract

Causal mediation analysis is an important statistical tool to quantify effects transmitted by intermediate variables from a cause to an outcome. There is a gap in mediation analysis methods to handle mixture mediator data that are zero-inflated with multi-modality and atypical behaviors. We propose an innovative way to model zero-inflated mixture mediators from the perspective of finite mixture distributions to flexibly capture such mediator data. Multiple data types are considered for modeling such mediators including the zero-inflated log-normal mixture, zero-inflated Poisson mixture and zero-inflated negative binomial mixture. A two-part mediation effect is derived to better understand effects on outcomes attributable to the numerical change as well as binary change from 0 to 1 in mediators. The maximum likelihood estimates are obtained by an expectation maximization algorithm to account for unobserved mixture membership and whether an observed zero is a true or false zero. The optimal number of mixture components are chosen by a model selection criterion. The performance of the proposed method is demonstrated in a simulation study and an application to a neuroscience study in comparison with standard mediation analysis methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    New York: Oxford University Press

    Vanderweele T.Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press . 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173

    BaronRM,KennyDA.Themoderator–mediatorvariabledistinctioninsocialpsychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic, and statistical considerations..Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1986; 51(6): 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173

    doi:10.1037/0022-

  3. [3]

    Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models.Sociological Methodology 1982; 13: 290

    Sobel ME. Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models.Sociological Methodology 1982; 13: 290. doi: 10.2307/270723

    work page doi:10.2307/270723 1982

  4. [4]

    Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect Effects.Epidemiology 1992; 3(2): 143–155

    Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect Effects.Epidemiology 1992; 3(2): 143–155. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 22 Jiang ET AL

    doi:10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 1992

  5. [5]

    Direct and Indirect Effects

    Pearl J. Direct and Indirect Effects. In: ; 2001; San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann: 411–420

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Marginal Structural Models for the Estimation of Direct and Indirect Effects.Epidemiology2009; 20(1): 18–26

    VanderWeele TJ. Marginal Structural Models for the Estimation of Direct and Indirect Effects.Epidemiology2009; 20(1): 18–26. doi: 10.1097/ede.0b013e31818f69ce

    work page doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e31818f69ce

  7. [7]

    PsychologicalMethods 2010;15(4):309–334

    ImaiK,KeeleL,TingleyD.Ageneralapproachtocausalmediationanalysis.. PsychologicalMethods 2010;15(4):309–334. doi: 10.1037/a0020761

    doi:10.1037/a0020761 2010

  8. [8]

    IFAA: Robust Association Identification and Inference for Absolute Abun- dance in Microbiome Analyses

    Li Z, Tian L, O’Malley AJ, et al. IFAA: Robust Association Identification and Inference for Absolute Abun- dance in Microbiome Analyses. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2021; 116(536): 1595–1608. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1860770

    arXiv 2021

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    The relationship between white matter hyperintensities and cognitive reference abilities across the life span.Neurobiology of aging2019; 83: 31–41

    Moura AR, Lee S, Habeck C, Razlighi Q, Stern Y. The relationship between white matter hyperintensities and cognitive reference abilities across the life span.Neurobiology of aging2019; 83: 31–41

  2. [10]

    The Truth behind the Zeros: A New Approach to Principal Com- ponent Analysis of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory

    Hellton KH, Cummings J, Vik-Mo AO, et al. The Truth behind the Zeros: A New Approach to Principal Com- ponent Analysis of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2020; 56(1): 70–85. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2020.1736976

    2020

  3. [11]

    MedZIM: Mediation analysis for Zero-Inflated Mediators with applications to microbiome data.arXiv:1906.09175v3 [stat.ME]2021

    Wu Q, O’Malley J, Liyanage J, et al. MedZIM: Mediation analysis for Zero-Inflated Mediators with applications to microbiome data.arXiv:1906.09175v3 [stat.ME]2021

    1906 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Statistics in Medicine2023; 42(13): 2061–2081

    JiangM,LeeS,O 'MalleyAJ,SternY,LiZ.Anovelcausalmediationanalysisapproachforzero-inflatedmediators. Statistics in Medicine2023; 42(13): 2061–2081. doi: 10.1002/sim.9689

    doi

  5. [13]

    The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems.Annals of Eugenics1936; 7(2): 179–188

    Fisher RA. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems.Annals of Eugenics1936; 7(2): 179–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1936.tb02137.x

    1936

  6. [14]

    Estimating the components of a mixture of normal distributions.Biometrika 1969; 56(3): 463–474

    Day NE. Estimating the components of a mixture of normal distributions.Biometrika 1969; 56(3): 463–474. doi: 10.1093/biomet/56.3.463

    1969 doi

  7. [15]

    Bias in Estimation of a Mixture of Normal Distributions.Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics2013; 04(05)

    Zhang SLY. Bias in Estimation of a Mixture of Normal Distributions.Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics2013; 04(05). doi: 10.4172/2155-6180.1000179

  8. [16]

    AnnualReviewofStatisticsandItsApplication 2019;6(1): 355–378

    McLachlanGJ,LeeSX,RathnayakeSI.FiniteMixtureModels. AnnualReviewofStatisticsandItsApplication 2019;6(1): 355–378. doi: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100325

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    JournaloftheAmerican Statistical Association1978; 73(364): 730–738

    QuandtRE,RamseyJB.EstimatingMixturesofNormalDistributionsandSwitchingRegressions. JournaloftheAmerican Statistical Association1978; 73(364): 730–738. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1978.10480085

    1978

  10. [18]

    Mixture Densities, Maximum Likelihood and the Em Algorithm.SIAM Review, 26(2), 195–239 1984

    Redner RA, Walker HF. Mixture Densities, Maximum Likelihood and the Em Algorithm.SIAM Review, 26(2), 195–239 1984

    1984

  11. [19]

    Neuropsychopharmacology2020; 46(1): 131–142

    KarcherNR,BarchDM.TheABCDstudy:understandingthedevelopmentofriskformentalandphysicalhealthoutcomes. Neuropsychopharmacology2020; 46(1): 131–142. doi: 10.1038/s41386-020-0736-6

    doi

  12. [20]

    Developmental cascades of behavior problems and cognitive ability from tod- dlerhood to middle childhood: A 9-year longitudinal study

    Zhang Q, Liu S, Wang Z, Cheng N. Developmental cascades of behavior problems and cognitive ability from tod- dlerhood to middle childhood: A 9-year longitudinal study. Early Human Development 2023; 179: 105731. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2023.105731

    2023

  13. [21]

    Behavior problems and children's academic achievement: A test of growth-curve models with gender and racial differences.Children and Youth Services Review2016; 67: 95–104

    Kremer KP, Flower A, Huang J, Vaughn MG. Behavior problems and children's academic achievement: A test of growth-curve models with gender and racial differences.Children and Youth Services Review2016; 67: 95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.003

    doi

  14. [22]

    doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116137 Jiang ET AL 23

    TournierJD,SmithR,RaffeltD,etal.MRtrix3:Afast,flexibleandopensoftwareframeworkformedicalimageprocessing and visualisation.NeuroImage2019; 202: 116137. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116137 Jiang ET AL 23

    2019

  15. [23]

    Anatomically-constrained tractography: Improved diffusion MRI streamlines tractography through effective use of anatomical information

    Smith RE, Tournier JD, Calamante F, Connelly A. Anatomically-constrained tractography: Improved diffusion MRI streamlines tractography through effective use of anatomical information. NeuroImage 2012; 62: 1924-1938. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.005

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex.Nature 2016; 536: 171-178

    Glasser MF, Coalson TS, Robinson EC, et al. A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex.Nature 2016; 536: 171-178. doi: 10.1038/nature18933

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Whole Brain Segmentation.Neuron 2002; 33(3): 341–355

    Fischl B, Salat DH, Busa E, et al. Whole Brain Segmentation.Neuron 2002; 33(3): 341–355. doi: 10.1016/s0896- 6273(02)00569-x

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.006

    JiJL,SpronkM,KulkarniK,RepovšG,AnticevicA,ColeMW.Mappingthehumanbrain’scortical-subcorticalfunctional network organization.NeuroImage2019; 185: 35–57. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.006

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Flexible Mediation Analysis With Multiple Mediators..American journal of epidemiology2017; 186: 184–193

    Steen J, Loeys T, Moerkerke B, Vansteelandt S. Flexible Mediation Analysis With Multiple Mediators..American journal of epidemiology2017; 186: 184–193. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx051

    doi

  20. [28]

    Causal Mediation Analysis with Multiple Mediators.Biometrics 2014; 71(1): 1–14

    Daniel RM, De Stavola BL, Cousens SN, Vansteelandt S. Causal Mediation Analysis with Multiple Mediators.Biometrics 2014; 71(1): 1–14. doi: 10.1111/biom.12248

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    doi: 10.1002/sim.7050

    NeelonB,O’MalleyAJ,SmithVA.Modelingzero-modifiedcountandsemicontinuousdatainhealthservicesresearchPart 1: background and overview.Statistics in Medicine2016; 35(27): 5070–5093. doi: 10.1002/sim.7050

    doi

  22. [30]

    On Stieltjes integration in Euclidean space.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications1986; 114(1): 57–74

    TerHorst H. On Stieltjes integration in Euclidean space.Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications1986; 114(1): 57–74. doi: 10.1016/0022-247x(86)90066-1

    doi

  23. [31]

    EpidemiologicMethods 2014;2(1):95-115

    VanderWeeleT,VansteelandtS.MediationAnalysiswithMultipleMediators. EpidemiologicMethods 2014;2(1):95-115

    2014

  24. [32]

    Direct calculation of the information matrix via the EM.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)1999; 61(2): 479–482

    Oakes D. Direct calculation of the information matrix via the EM.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)1999; 61(2): 479–482

    1999

  25. [33]

    CMAverse: A Suite of Functions for Reproducible Causal Mediation Analyses

    Shi B, Choirat C, Coull BA, VanderWeele TJ, Valeri L. CMAverse: A Suite of Functions for Reproducible Causal Mediation Analyses. Epidemiology 2021; 32(5): e20–e22. Available from https://bs1125.github.io/CMAverse/doi: 10.1097/ede.0000000000001378 24 Jiang ET AL TABLE 2Simulati...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.