Spatio-temporal Associations Between GOES Aerosol Optical Depth Retrievals and Ground-Level PM2.5

We assess the strength of association between aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrievals from the GOES Aerosol/Smoke Product (GASP) and ground-level fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to assess AOD as a proxy for PM2.5 in the United States. GASP AOD is retrieved from a geostationary platform and therefore provides dense temporal coverage with half-hourly observations every day, in contrast to once per day snapshots from polar-orbiting satellites. However, GASP AOD is based on a less-sophisticated instrument and retrieval algorithm. We find that correlations between GASP AOD and PM2.5 over time at fixed locations are reasonably high, except in the winter and in the western U.S. Correlations over space at fixed times are lower. Simple averaging over time actually reduces correlations over space dramatically, but statistical calibration allows averaging over time that produces strong correlations. These results and the data density of GASP AOD highlight its potential to help improve exposure estimates for epidemiological analyses. On average 40% of days in a month have a GASP AOD retrieval compared to 14% for MODIS and 4% for MISR. Furthermore, GASP AOD has been retrieved since November 1994, providing the possibility of a long-term record that pre-dates the availability of most PM2.5 monitoring data and other satellite instruments.

Semiparametric Estimation of Models for Natural Direct and Indirect Effects

In recent years, researchers in the health and social sciences have become increasingly interested in mediation analysis. Specifically, upon establishing a non-null total effect of an exposure, investigators routinely wish to make inferences about the direct (indirect) pathway of the effect of the exposure not through (through) a mediator variable that occurs subsequently to the exposure and prior to the outcome. Natural direct and indirect effects are of particular interest as they generally combine to produce the total effect of the exposure and therefore provide insight on the mechanism by which it operates to produce the outcome. A semiparametric theory has recently been proposed to make inferences about marginal mean natural direct and indirect effects in observational studies (Tchetgen Tchetgen and Shpitser, 2011), which delivers multiply robust locally efficient estimators of the marginal direct and indirect effects, and thus generalizes previous results for total effects to the mediation setting. In this paper we extend the new theory to handle a setting in which a parametric model for the natural direct (indirect) effect within levels of pre-exposure variables is specified and the model for the observed data likelihood is otherwise unrestricted. We show that estimation is generally not feasible in this model because of the curse of dimensionality associated with the required estimation of auxiliary conditional densities or expectations, given high-dimensional covariates. We thus consider multiply robust estimation and propose a more general model which assumes a subset but not all of several working models holds.

On Causal Mediation Analysis with a Survival Outcome

Suppose that having established a marginal total effect of a point exposure on a time-to-event outcome, an investigator wishes to decompose this effect into its direct and indirect pathways, also know as natural direct and indirect effects, mediated by a variable known to occur after the exposure and prior to the outcome. This paper proposes a theory of estimation of natural direct and indirect effects in two important semiparametric models for a failure time outcome. The underlying survival model for the marginal total effect and thus for the direct and indirect effects, can either be a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model, or a marginal structural additive hazards model. The proposed theory delivers new estimators for mediation analysis in each of these models, with appealing robustness properties. Specifically, in order to guarantee ignorability with respect to the exposure and mediator variables, the approach, which is multiply robust, allows the investigator to use several flexible working models to adjust for confounding by a large number of pre-exposure variables. Multiple robustness is appealing because it only requires a subset of working models to be correct for consistency; furthermore, the analyst need not know which subset of working models is in fact correct to report valid inferences. Finally, a novel semiparametric sensitivity analysis technique is developed for each of these models, to assess the impact on inference, of a violation of the assumption of ignorability of the mediator.

Effectively Selecting a Target Population for a Future Comparative Study

When comparing a new treatment with a control in a randomized clinical study, the treatment effect is generally assessed by evaluating a summary measure over a specific study population. The success of the trial heavily depends on the choice of such a population. In this paper, we show a systematic, effective way to identify a promising population, for which the new treatment is expected to have a desired benefit, using the data from a current study involving similar comparator treatments. Specifically, with the existing data we first create a parametric scoring system using multiple covariates to estimate subject-specific treatment differences. Using this system, we specify a desired level of treatment difference and create a subgroup of patients, defined as those whose estimated scores exceed this threshold. An empirically calibrated group-specific treatment difference curve across a range of threshold values is constructed. The population of patients with any desired level of treatment benefit can then be identified accordingly. To avoid any ``self-serving'' bias, we utilize a cross-training-evaluation method for implementing the above two-step procedure. Lastly, we show how to select the best scoring system among all competing models. The proposals are illustrated with the data from two clinical trials in treating AIDS and cardiovascular diseases. Note that if we are not interested in designing a new study for comparing similar treatments, the new procedure can also be quite useful for the management of future patients who would receive nontrivial benefits to compensate for the risk or cost of the new treatment.