Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data01:25

Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data

Epidemiological data primarily involves information on specific populations' occurrence, distribution, and determinants of health and diseases. This data is crucial for understanding disease patterns and impacts, aiding public health decision-making and disease prevention strategies. The analysis of epidemiological data employs various statistical methods to interpret health-related data effectively. Here are some commonly used methods:
Introduction to Epidemiology01:26

Introduction to Epidemiology

Epidemiology, known as the cornerstone of public health, involves studying the distribution and determinants of health-related events in defined populations and applying these insights to control health issues. This is essential for understanding how diseases spread, identifying populations at greater risk, and implementing measures to control or prevent outbreaks. Epidemiology addresses not only infectious diseases but also non-communicable conditions like cancer and cardiovascular disease,...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies01:27

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This phenomenon...
Causality in Epidemiology01:21

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

[Position paper. The role of epidemiology in urban health].

Epidemiologia e prevenzione·2026
Same author

Determinants of body mass index during early life: findings from an exposome-wide association study with follow-up replication and Mendelian randomization analyses.

Exposome·2026
Same author

A European collaborative initiative to systematically map cancer risk by migration background: the Cancer RADAR project.

International journal for equity in health·2026
Same author

Update of the MSKCC nomogram for metastatic progression and its role in active surveillance: the Italian TPCP cohort.

Frontiers in oncology·2026
Same author

Health System Factors in Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis: A HEADSpAcE Consortium Qualitative Study in Glasgow and Montevideo.

Head & neck·2026
Same author

Comparison of DNA methylation measured in saliva and peripheral blood as a marker of exposure and outcome: a scoping review.

Clinical epigenetics·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 8, 2026

The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
08:36

The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Published on: April 19, 2024

Mediation analysis in epidemiology: methods, interpretation and bias.

Lorenzo Richiardi1, Rino Bellocco, Daniela Zugna

  • 1Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, CPO-Piemonte, Turin, Italy, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden and Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.

International Journal of Epidemiology
|September 11, 2013
PubMed
Summary

Traditional mediation analysis in epidemiology can yield flawed results. This review highlights key biases like mediator-outcome confounding and exposure-mediator interaction, advocating for improved causal inference methods.

Keywords:
Mediation analysisdirect effectsindirect effects

More Related Videos

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 8, 2026

The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
08:36

The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Published on: April 19, 2024

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
06:55

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Area of Science:

  • Epidemiology
  • Biostatistics
  • Causal Inference

Background:

  • Mediation analysis in epidemiology aims to distinguish direct and indirect effects of exposures on outcomes.
  • The traditional regression-based approach for estimating direct effects can be problematic.
  • Methodological advancements offer more valid and interpretable mediation analyses.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review and discuss major sources of bias in traditional mediation analysis.
  • To highlight the impact of mediator-outcome confounding, exposure-mediator interaction, and exposure-affected mediator-outcome confounding.
  • To underscore the importance of causal structure in mediation analysis.

Main Methods:

  • Review of methodological literature on mediation analysis.
  • Discussion of causal diagrams and counterfactual frameworks.
  • Illustrative examples of bias in traditional methods.

Main Results:

  • Identified three primary sources of bias in traditional mediation analysis: (i) mediator-outcome confounding, (ii) exposure-mediator interaction, and (iii) mediator-outcome confounding affected by exposure.
  • Demonstrated how these biases can lead to flawed conclusions regarding direct and indirect effects.
  • Emphasized the limitations of adjusting for mediators in standard regression models.

Conclusions:

  • The traditional approach to mediation analysis is susceptible to significant bias.
  • A deeper understanding of causal relationships and counterfactuals is crucial for accurate mediation analysis.
  • Alternative analytical methods are necessary to overcome the limitations of traditional approaches and ensure valid interpretation of exposure effects.