Lois A. Gelfand, David P. MacKinnon, Robert J. DeRubeis, Amanda N. Baraldi
Abstract
Survival time is an important type of outcome variable in treatment research. Currently, limited guidance is available regarding performing mediation analyses with survival outcomes, which generally do not have normally distributed errors, and contain unobserved (censored) events. We present considerations for choosing an approach, using a comparison of semi-parametric proportional hazards (PH) and fully parametric accelerated failure time (AFT) approaches for illustration.
We compare PH and AFT models and procedures in their integration into mediation models and review their ability to produce coefficients that estimate causal effects. Using simulation studies modeling Weibull-distributed survival times, we compare statistical properties of mediation analyses incorporating PH and AFT approaches (employing SAS procedures PHREG and LIFEREG, respectively) under varied data conditions, some including censoring. A simulated data set illustrates the findings.
AFT models integrate more easily than PH models into mediation models. Furthermore, mediation analyses incorporating LIFEREG produce coefficients that can estimate causal effects, and demonstrate superior statistical properties. Censoring introduces bias in the coefficient estimate representing the treatment effect on outcome-underestimation in LIFEREG, and overestimation in PHREG. With LIFEREG, this bias can be addressed using an alternative estimate obtained from combining other coefficients, whereas this is not possible with PHREG.
When Weibull assumptions are not violated, there are compelling advantages to using LIFEREG over PHREG for mediation analyses involving survival-time outcomes. Irrespective of the procedures used, the interpretation of coefficients, effects of censoring on coefficient estimates, and statistical properties should be taken into account when reporting results.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2021.
All research outputs
#15,941,515
of 25,231,854 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,845
of 34,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,925
of 307,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#284
of 461 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,231,854 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 461 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
