首页> 外文期刊>Epidemiology >Can DAGs Clarify Effect Modification?
【24h】

Can DAGs Clarify Effect Modification?

机译:DAG可以澄清效果修饰吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The system proposed by VanderWeele and Robins for categorization of effect modifiers that are causal nodes in a directed acyclic graph (DAG) was not intended to empower DAGs to fully represent complex interactions among causes. However, once one has algebraically identified effect modifiers, the DAG implies a role for them. The limitations of epidemiologic definitions of "effect modification" are discussed, along with the implications of scale dependency for assessing interactions, where the scale can be either absolute risk, relative risk, or odds. My view is that probabilistic independence leads to the log-complement as a natural scale for interaction, but even that scale does not necessarily admit unambiguous inference. Any 2 direct causes of D are effect modifiers for each other on at least 2 scales, which can make a reasonable person question the utility of the concept. Still, etiologic models for joint effects are important, because most diseases arise through pathways involving multiple factors.I suggest an enhancement in construction of DAGs in epidemiology that includes arrow-on-arrow representations for effect modification. Examples are given, some of which depend on scale and some of which do not. An example illustrates possible biologic implications for such an effect modification DAG.
机译:VanderWeele和Robins提出的将效果修饰符归类为有向无环图(DAG)中因果节点的系统,并不是要授权DAG完全代表原因之间的复杂相互作用。但是,一旦以代数方式确定了效果修饰符,DAG便暗示了它们的作用。讨论了“效应修饰”的流行病学定义的局限性,以及量表依赖性对评估相互作用的影响,其中量表可以是绝对风险,相对风险或优势。我的观点是,概率独立性会导致对数补码作为交互的自然尺度,但即使这种尺度也不一定能接受明确的推论。 D的任何两个直接原因都是在至少2个等级上彼此的效果修饰符,这可以使一个合理的人质疑该概念的效用。但是,对于联合效应的病因学模型仍然很重要,因为大多数疾病都是通过涉及多种因素的途径发生的。我建议在流行病学中加强DAG的构建,其中包括箭头修饰箭头来修饰效应。给出了示例,其中一些取决于规模,而某些则不取决于规模。一个例子说明了这种作用修饰DAG的可能的生物学意义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号