Dataset Information

Adjustment for energy intake in nutritional research: a causal inference perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Four models are commonly used to adjust for energy intake when estimating the causal effect of a dietary component on an outcome: 1) the "standard model" adjusts for total energy intake, 2) the "energy partition model" adjusts for remaining energy intake, 3) the "nutrient density model" rescales the exposure as a proportion of total energy, and 4) the "residual model" indirectly adjusts for total energy by using a residual. It remains underappreciated that each approach evaluates a different estimand and only partially accounts for confounding by common dietary causes.

Objectives

We aimed to clarify the implied causal estimand and interpretation of each model and evaluate their performance in reducing dietary confounding.

Methods

Semiparametric directed acyclic graphs and Monte Carlo simulations were used to identify the estimands and interpretations implied by each model and explore their performance in the absence or presence of dietary confounding.

Results

The "standard model" and the mathematically identical "residual model" estimate the average relative causal effect (i.e., a "substitution" effect) but provide biased estimates even in the absence of confounding. The "energy partition model" estimates the total causal effect but only provides unbiased estimates in the absence of confounding or when all other nutrients have equal effects on the outcome. The "nutrient density model" has an obscure interpretation but attempts to estimate the average relative causal effect rescaled as a proportion of total energy. Accurate estimates of both the total and average relative causal effects may instead be derived by simultaneously adjusting for all dietary components, an approach we term the "all-components model."

Conclusions

Lack of awareness of the estimand differences and accuracy of the 4 modeling approaches may explain some of the apparent heterogeneity among existing nutritional studies. This raises serious questions regarding the validity of meta-analyses where different estimands have been inappropriately pooled.

SUBMITTER: Tomova GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8755101 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral approaches are commonly used to estimate the effect of diet on changes of various intermediate disease markers in prospective studies, including "change-score analysis", "concurrent change-change analysis" and "lagged change-change analysis". Although empirical evidence suggests that concurrent change-change analysis is most robust, consistent, and biologically plausible, in-depth dissection and comparison of these approaches from a causal inference perspective is lacking. We intend to explicitly elucidate and compare the underlying causal model, causal estimand and interpretation of these approaches, intuitively illustrate it with directed acyclic graph (DAG), and further clarify strengths and limitations of the recommended concurrent change-change analysis through simulations.MethodsCausal model and DAG are deployed to clarify the causal estimand and interpretation of each approach theoretically. Monte Carlo simulation is used to explore the performance of distinct approaches under different extents of time-invariant heterogeneity and the performance of concurrent change-change analysis when its causal identification assumptions are violated.ResultsConcurrent change-change analysis targets the contemporaneous effect of exposure on outcome (measured at the same survey wave), which is more relevant and plausible in studying the associations of diet and intermediate biomarkers in prospective studies, while change-score analysis and lagged change-change analysis target the effect of exposure on outcome after one-period timespan (typically several years). Concurrent change-change analysis always yields unbiased estimates even with severe unobserved time-invariant confounding, while the other two approaches are always biased even without time-invariant heterogeneity. However, concurrent change-change analysis produces almost linearly increasing estimation bias with violation of its causal identification assumptions becoming more serious.ConclusionsConcurrent change-change analysis might be the most superior method in studying the diet and intermediate biomarkers in prospective studies, which targets the most plausible estimand and circumvents the bias from unobserved individual heterogeneity. Importantly, careful examination of the vital identification assumptions behind it should be underscored before applying this promising method.

Project description:BackgroundStatistical adjustment is often considered to control confounding bias in observational studies, especially case-control studies. However, different adjustment strategies may affect the estimation of odds ratios (ORs), and in turn affect the results of their pooled analyses. Our study is aimed to investigate how to deal with the statistical adjustment in case-control studies to improve the validity of meta-analyses.MethodsThree types of adjustment strategies were evaluated including insufficient adjustment (not all preset confounders were adjusted), full adjustment (all confounders were adjusted under the guidance of causal inference), and improper adjustment (covariates other than confounders were adjusted). We carried out a series of Monte Carlo simulation experiments based on predesigned scenarios, and assessed the accuracy of effect estimations from meta-analyses of case-control studies by combining ORs calculated according to different adjustment strategies. Then we used the data from an empirical review to illustrate the replicability of the simulation results.ResultsFor all scenarios with different strength of causal relations, combining ORs that were comprehensively adjusted for confounders would get the most precise effect estimation. By contrast, combining ORs that were not sufficiently adjusted for confounders or improperly adjusted for mediators or colliders would easily introduce bias in causal interpretation, especially when the true effect of exposure on outcome was weak or none. The findings of the simulation experiments were further verified by the empirical research.ConclusionsStatistical adjustment guided by causal inference are recommended for effect estimation. Therefore, when conducting meta-analyses of case-control studies, the causal relationship formulated by exposure, outcome, and covariates should be firstly understood through a directed acyclic graph, and then reasonable original ORs could be extracted and combined by suitable methods.