| Literature DB >> 27352406 |
Kelly K Ferguson1, Yin-Hsiu Chen, Tyler J VanderWeele, Thomas F McElrath, John D Meeker, Bhramar Mukherjee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mediation analysis is useful for understanding mechanisms and has been used minimally in the study of the environment and disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27352406 PMCID: PMC5332184 DOI: 10.1289/EHP282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Figure 1Simple conceptual model for mediation analysis in the context of the present study (adapted from VanderWeele and Tchetgen Tchetgen 2014).
Effect estimates (95% confidence intervals) with ln-unit increase in exposure and estimated percent mediated, calculated from regression estimates and standard errors generated from models 1–2 (Table S1) under Method 1: Counterfactual approach utilizing exposure and mediator averages.
| All preterm | Natural direct effect (95% CI) | Natural indirect effect (95% CI) | Total effect (95% CI) | Estimated percent mediated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEHP | 0.264 (0.009, 0.541) | 0.062 (0.011, 0.147) | 0.325 (0.075, 0.611) | 19 |
| MECPP | 0.264 (0.009, 0.526) | 0.114 (0.045, 0.226) | 0.378 (0.134, 0.647) | 30 |
| ∑DEHP | 0.207 (–0.061, 0.484) | 0.099 (0.036, 0.204) | 0.307 (0.042, 0.595) | 32 |
| MBP | 0.170 (–0.198, 0.490) | 0.107 (0.039, 0.232) | 0.277 (–0.070, 0.614) | 39 |
Effect estimates (95% confidence intervals) with ln-unit increase in exposure and estimated percent mediated calculated from regression estimates and standard errors generated from models 7–8 (Table S4) under Method 4: Longitudinal approach utilizing repeated measures of exposure and mediator with interaction.
| All preterm | Natural direct effect | Natural indirect effect | Total effect | Estimated percent mediated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEHP | 0.299 (0.033, 0.594) | 0.077 (0.033, 0.142) | 0.376 (0.103, 0.692) | 20 |
| MECPP | 0.264 (–0.006, 0.528) | 0.094 (0.041, 0.183) | 0.358 (0.096, 0.637) | 26 |
| ∑DEHP | 0.225 (–0.063, 0.505) | 0.086 (0.037, 0.166) | 0.310 (0.027, 0.607) | 28 |
| MBP | 0.168 (–0.230, 0.549) | 0.112 (0.054, 0.229) | 0.280 (–0.081, 0.684) | 40 |
Effect estimates (95% confidence intervals) with ln-unit increase in exposure and estimated percent mediated calculated from regression estimates and standard errors generated from models 3–4 (Table S2) under Method 2: Counterfactual approach utilizing exposure and mediator averages with interaction.
| All preterm | Natural direct effect | Natural indirect effect | Total effect | Estimated percent mediated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEHP | 0.276 (0.012, 0.575) | 0.070 (0.014, 0.158) | 0.346 (0.081, 0.651) | 20 |
| MECPP | 0.264 (–0.013, 0.523) | 0.114 (0.047, 0.233) | 0.378 (0.124, 0.650) | 30 |
| ∑DEHP | 0.215 (–0.075, 0.506) | 0.104 (0.041, 0.221) | 0.319 (0.043, 0.625) | 33 |
| MBP | 0.169 (–0.233, 0.516) | 0.106 (0.041, 0.237) | 0.276 (–0.096, 0.643) | 39 |
Effect estimates (95% confidence intervals) with ln-unit increase in exposure and estimated percent mediated calculated from regression estimates and standard errors generated from models 5–6 (Table S3) under Method 3: Longitudinal approach utilizing repeated measures of exposure and mediator.
| All preterm | Natural direct effect | Natural indirect effect | Total effect | Estimated percent mediated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEHP | 0.264 (0.011, 0.542) | 0.054 (0.012, 0.125) | 0.317 (0.069, 0.600) | 17 |
| MECPP | 0.264 (0.024, 0.528) | 0.100 (0.040, 0.195) | 0.364 (0.131, 0.634) | 27 |
| ∑DEHP | 0.207 (–0.059, 0.480) | 0.085 (0.031, 0.172) | 0.292 (0.035, 0.568) | 29 |
| MBP | 0.170 (–0.204, 0.494) | 0.089 (0.032, 0.187) | 0.259 (–0.102, 0.587) | 34 |