Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Mediation Analysis in the Presence of Sample Selection Bias with an Application to Disparities in Liver Transplantation Listing

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that natural direct and indirect effects can be identified from selected samples when the Generalized Adjustment Criterion holds and all mediator-outcome backdoor paths are blocked by measured covariates and the selection i

desk verdict A useful theoretical extension of mediation formulas to selection bias, but the liver transplant application runs outside the theorem's stated single-mediator condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01969 v1 pith:GAFG6SRV submitted 2025-09-02 stat.AP stat.ME

Zain Khan , Lynnette Sequeira , Alexandra T. Strauss , Vedant Jain , Juliette Dixon , Eric Moughames , Tyrus Vong , Daniel Malinsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APstat.ME MSC 62D20
keywords causalinferencemediationanalysisselectionbiaspath-specificeffectslivertransplantationsocialdeterminantsofhealthgeneralizedadjustmentcriterioninverseprobabilityweighting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that direct and indirect causal effects can still be estimated when the analysis sample is not a random slice of the target population, as long as the selection process is represented in a causal graph and baseline data on the full population are available. The authors prove a 'selected mediation formula' that reweights the usual mediation formula with inverse-probability-of-selection weights, and they give graphical conditions under which it identifies natural direct and indirect effects and, more generally, path-specific effects. They apply the formula to liver transplant listing, asking whether a patient's socioeconomic position, measured by private insurance, affects the listing decision directly or through the outcome of a psychosocial review. Their estimates show both pathways operate, and correcting for selection into the evaluated sample leaves those conclusions essentially unchanged. A sympathetic reader would care because dropout before a decision is common in transplant evaluation and in many other clinical processes, so off-the-shelf mediation estimates may be biased.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the selected mediation formula (Eq. 6), built from two components. The first is the extended graph: each proper causal path from $X$ to $Y$ receives a new deterministic child $X^e$ of $X$, turning nested counterfactuals like $Y(x, M(x'))$ into ordinary do-interventions on the extended nodes. The second is the Generalized Adjustment Criterion, which supplies a selection-robust adjustment formula using conditional distributions given $S=1$ and an external marginal distribution for a baseline subset $Z^T$. Theorem 1 transfers validity of the criterion from the original graph to the extended graph, and the additional condition that all backdoor paths between $M$ and $Y$ are blocked by $Z$ and $S$

What would settle it

Measure transportation access and health literacy in the cohort of 497 referred patients and re-estimate the selection-adjusted NIE and NDE under the expanded DAG in Figure 6; a material shift in the estimates would falsify the no-recanting-witness condition. Alternatively, generate data with a hidden post-exposure common cause of the mediator and outcome and check whether Eq. (6) recovers the true nested counterfactual; if it does not, the sufficiency conditions are incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2, with its multi-mediator generalization in Theorem 3. Under the Generalized Adjustment Criterion for the total effect of exposure $X$ on outcome $Y$ in a graph augmented with a selection node $S$, and provided every backdoor path between the mediator $M$ and $Y$ is blocked by $Z$ and $S$, the nested counterfactual $E[Y(x, M(x'))]$ equals the sum over $z$ and $m$ of $E[Y \mid X=x, m, z, S=1] p(m \mid X=x', z, S=1) p(z \setminus z^T \mid z^T, S=1) p(z^T)$. This identifies natural direct and indirect effects using only the selected sample plus external baseline information on $Z^T$. The same style of condition extends to edge-consistent path-specific effects with multiple mediators, producing a fusion of

Load-bearing premise

There are no unmeasured post-exposure variables, such as transportation access or health literacy, that affect both the psychosocial review and the listing decision; if such variables exist, the estimated direct and indirect effects are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the two conditions in Theorem 2 hold, researchers can estimate natural direct and indirect effects from selected data plus external baseline information, without observing outcomes for dropouts.
  • With multiple mediators, edge-consistent path-specific effects are identified by Eq. (7), so finer decompositions than a single indirect path are available under the same style of assumptions.
  • In the liver cohort, private insurance affects listing both through psychosocial review (NIE-RR 1.10) and through other pathways (NDE-RR 1.26), and both intervals exclude the null even after selection adjustment.
  • A practical corollary is that interventions on the psychosocial-review pathway alone would move only the mediated component; reducing listing disparities also requires acting on the direct pathway.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the no-recanting-witness assumption holds, the same identification strategy transfers to other clinical or administrative processes where a gatekeeping assessment mediates a disparity and dropout precedes the decision; the required data are only baseline variables for the full referred cohort.
  • The small gap between the naive and adjusted estimates in this cohort suggests that selection on the measured social determinants is weak relative to the effects; in populations with stronger selection, the formula would matter more, so replication in higher-bias cohorts is a natural next test.
  • A sensitivity analysis treating transportation and health literacy as latent common causes of psychosocial review and listing could bound how much of the reported NIE and NDE is artifact; the paper does not provide such bounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends Pearl's mediation formula to settings with sample selection bias. The main theoretical result, Theorem 2, states that under the Generalized Adjustment Criterion (GAC) for the total effect and an additional condition blocking backdoor paths between the mediator and outcome, the selected mediation formula (Eq. 6) identifies E[Y(x, M(x'))], and hence natural direct and indirect effects, when M is a single mediator equal to Ch(X)∩Pa(Y). Theorem 3 gives an analogous multiple-mediator path-specific formula. The authors support the theory with a simulation study based on the single-mediator DAG of Fig. 1(b) and apply the method to estimate the mediated and direct effects of insurance status (as a proxy for SEP) on liver-transplant listing through psychosocial review, comparing naive estimates with selection-adjusted estimates.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution by combining two established strands—mediation identification and GAC-based selection-bias correction with external data—into a practically applicable procedure. The appendix contains detailed do-calculus proofs and the simulation demonstrates bias correction in one DGP. The case study addresses a clinically and socially important question: whether socioeconomic disparities in transplant listing act through the psychosocial evaluation. The paper clearly states assumptions and limitations, including the possible recanting-witness problem. However, the proofs are not machine-checked and contain notational looseness, and there is a substantial gap between the single-mediator theorem and the DAG used in the case study.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2 / Fig. 5 / Theorem 2 / Eq. (6)] Theorem 2 is stated only for a single mediator M = Ch(X)∩Pa(Y). In the case-study DAG, SEP has two children that are parents of Listed: Psychosocial Review and Disease-related. Thus Ch(X)∩Pa(Y) is not a singleton. Eq. (6) marginalizes only over Psychosocial Review; Theorem 3 would require a product over all mediators, including Disease-related, which is not measured. The §5.2 statement that disease-related variables need not be measured because the direct effect amalgamates their pathways is not a consequence of any theorem in the paper. No result proves that Eq. (6) identifies E[Y(x, Psychosocial(x'))] under GAC/selection when an additional parallel mediator affected by X and affecting Y is present. Standard no-selection mediation theory supports this estimand in special cases, but the selection extension is missing.
  2. [§4 simulation] The simulation uses exactly the single-mediator DGP of Fig. 1(b). It therefore cannot detect the mismatch above. If the applied estimand is to be defended, add a simulation with a parallel mediator M2 (affected by X, affecting Y, unmeasured) and show that the proposed focal-mediator estimator remains unbiased under GAC/selection, or give an analytic argument showing where M2 drops out. Without this, the empirical support for the central applied claim is absent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical issues: 'a a brief simulation study' (§4), 'We being by describing' (§A.1), 'selection has minimal on the effect estimates' (§5.3), 'that that socioeconomic position' (§6), and 'Compete algorithms' (§6).
  2. [Theorem 2] The notation Gpbd_{(X,M),Y} used in condition 2 is not defined; Definition 2 defines only Gpbd_{X,Y}. Please define the generalization.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The inverse-probability weights w_i = P(S=1)/P(S=1|z_i^T) are valid only if selection depends on Z^T alone, i.e., S ⊥ (Z \ Z^T) | Z^T. This is encoded in Fig. 5 but should be stated as an explicit assumption, especially since the case study relies on it.
  4. [§5.3] The modification of CMAverse to incorporate selection weights is not described. A brief algorithmic description, or a statement of code/data availability, would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained; the only self-citation (extended-graph framework) is a non-load-bearing tool.

full rationale

The central result (Eq. 6, Theorem 2) is a theorem proved from the Generalized Adjustment Criterion (GAC, Def. 3, Eq. 4) of Correa et al. (2018), a genuinely external result, plus the extended-graph representation. The proof in Appendix A.3 uses do-calculus and auxiliary m-separation lemmas (Appendix A.1); nowhere is the target nested counterfactual E[Y(x,M(x'))] assumed in the premises. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the simulation fixes true NIE=3 and NDE=0.5 and checks whether estimators recover them, so the simulation is a check, not a circular derivation. The only self-citation is Malinsky et al. (2019) for the extended-graph construction; that is a representational tool, not a uniqueness theorem, and the paper also cites independent work (Robins & Richardson 2010; Didelez 2019; Robins et al. 2022). Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing in the circularity sense. Two scope/correctness concerns are explicitly flagged but are not circularity: Section 5.3 acknowledges unmeasured post-exposure variables (transportation, health literacy) could violate the no-recanting-witness assumption, and the case-study DAG (Fig. 5) has multiple mediators on X->Y paths (Disease-related and Psychosocial Review), so Theorem 2's singleton-mediator condition is formally not satisfied and no theorem in the paper establishes Eq. 6 for that subgraph. These are omitted-proof/application-scope risks, not reductions of the output to the input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical identification result uses no invented entities or fitted parameters. The applied case study relies on standard nuisance models and on domain assumptions about the DAG, no unmeasured recanting witnesses, and selection depending only on measured SDOH. The simulation uses hand-chosen coefficients that define the true effects.

free parameters (3)
  • Simulation DGP coefficients = 1.0, 2.0, 0.5, 0.5, 1.0 (hand-chosen)
    Define the true NIE=3 and NDE=0.5 in the simulation; these are not fitted to data, only chosen to create a mediation setting with interaction.
  • Selection weight logistic regression coefficients = estimated from case study data
    Used in the case study to estimate w_i = P(S=1)/P(S=1|z_i^T); these are standard nuisance parameters, not part of the identification theory.
  • Mediator and outcome model coefficients = estimated from case study data
    Nuisance models in the counterfactual imputation estimator; not part of the theoretical claim, but the applied effect estimates depend on their correctness.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The extended graph (split-treatment) construction of Malinsky et al. 2019 correctly represents nested counterfactuals as joint interventions on extended nodes.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and used throughout the proofs; this is a published mathematical framework, used as a tool.
  • standard math The Generalized Adjustment Criterion (GAC Type 3) of Correa et al. 2018 correctly identifies total effects under selection bias with external data.
    Adopted as a premise in Definition 3 and Theorem 1; the paper relies on this prior result without re-proving it.
  • domain assumption The DAG in Figure 5 correctly encodes the causal relationships among baseline SDOH, SEP, psychosocial review, disease-related variables, listing, and selection.
    The case study identification depends on this graph; if an edge is missing or an unmeasured confounder exists, the estimates are biased.
  • domain assumption There are no post-exposure variables that act as recanting witnesses, i.e., no unmeasured variables affected by SEP that also affect both psychosocial review and listing.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation in Section 5.3; the authors acknowledge transportation and health literacy as possible violations.
  • domain assumption Selection into the analysis sample depends only on measured baseline SDOH variables, so that the inverse-probability weights estimated from these variables are correct.
    The weighting formula (8) requires that P(S=1|z) is correctly specified and that selection is independent of unmeasured factors given Z^T; this is assumed in the case study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mediation Analysis in the Presence of Sample Selection Bias with an Application to Disparities in Liver Transplantation Listing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GAFG6SRV

@misc{pith2026250901969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mediation Analysis in the Presence of Sample Selection Bias with an Application to Disparities in Liver Transplantation Listing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GAFG6SRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01969}
}
read the original abstract

The study of disparities in the liver transplantation process may focus on quantifying causal effects, particularly the average, direct, or indirect effects of various social determinants of health on being listed as a candidate for transplant. Selection bias arises when the data sample does not represent the target population, defined here as all individuals referred to the transplant clinic. Listing decisions are made for the subset of patients who complete the evaluation process, who may differ systematically from the referred population. There is evidence that selection is associated with patient characteristics that also impact outcomes. Using data only from the selected population may yield biased causal effect estimates. However, incorporating data from the referred population allows for analytic correction. This correction leverages hypothesized causal relationships among selection, the outcome (getting listed), exposures, and mediators. Using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), we establish graphical conditions under which a reweighted mediation formula identifies effect of interest - direct, indirect, and path-specific effects - in the presence of sample selection. In a clinical case study, we investigate mediated and direct effects of a patient's socioeconomic position on being listed for transplant, allowing selection to depend on race, gender, age, and other social determinants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of mediation models 3 Identification of Path Specific Effects under Selection Bias The identification of mediation quantities (including direct/indirect effects and path-specific ef￾fects) depends on additional assumptions beyond those encoded directly in the graphical model G. In particular, there are three distinct causal models that have figured prominently in discus￾sions of mediation analysis: the NPSE… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Extended causal graphs for the mediation models in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example mediation models with multiple mediators. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of mediation effect estimates across selection bias strength levels. The red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hypothesized relationships among liver transplant variables, visualized in a directed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An expanded hypothetical DAG for the liver transplantation variables. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Avin, I. Shpitser, and J. Pearl. Identifiability of path-specific effects. In Proceedings of the 19th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 357--363, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Bangaru, M

    S. Bangaru, M. C. Wang, M. Sumethasorn, S. Wang, C. Wong, S. Omer, N. Kim, S. Shah, M. Yilma, M. Tana, et al. Social determinants of health are associated with liver transplant evaluation and listing in a safety-net referral cohort. Liver Transplantation, pages 10--1097, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Bareinboim and J

    E. Bareinboim and J. Pearl. Controlling selection bias in causal inference. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 100--108. PMLR, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Bareinboim and J

    E. Bareinboim and J. Tian. Recovering causal effects from selection bias. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 29, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Bareinboim, J

    E. Bareinboim, J. Tian, and J. Pearl. Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference. In Probabilistic and causal inference: The works of Judea Pearl, pages 433--450. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    N. A. Bhavsar, R. E. Patzer, D. J. Taber, K. Ross-Driscoll, R. D. Reed, J. C. Caicedo-Ramirez, E. J. Gordon, R. A. Matsouaka, U. Rogers, W. Webster, et al. Defining the need for causal inference to understand the impact of social determinants of health: a primer on behalf of the consortium for the holistic assessment of risk in transplantation (chart). An...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    R. J. Chen, J. J. Wang, D. F. Williamson, T. Y. Chen, J. Lipkova, M. Y. Lu, S. Sahai, and F. Mahmood. Algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare. Nature biomedical engineering, 7 0 (6): 0 719--742, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    J. D. Correa and E. Bareinboim. Causal effect identification by adjustment under confounding and selection biases. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. Correa, J. Tian, and E. Bareinboim. Generalized adjustment under confounding and selection biases. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    J. D. Correa, J. Tian, and E. Bareinboim. Identification of causal effects in the presence of selection bias. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 2744--2751, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    R. Dale, M. Cheng, K. C. Pines, and M. E. Currie. Inconsistent values and algorithmic fairness: a review of organ allocation priority systems in the united states. BMC Medical Ethics, 25 0 (1): 0 115, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    V. Didelez. Defining causal mediation with a longitudinal mediator and a survival outcome. Lifetime data analysis, 25: 0 593--610, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Drezga-Kleiminger, J

    M. Drezga-Kleiminger, J. Demaree-Cotton, J. Koplin, J. Savulescu, and D. Wilkinson. Should ai allocate livers for transplant? public attitudes and ethical considerations. BMC Medical Ethics, 24 0 (1): 0 102, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    J. T. Flanary, P.-H. Chen, S. Shan, J. Mitchell, A. Gurakar, A. T. Strauss, M. Diener-West, M. R. Desjardins, S. R. Weeks, K. Herrick-Reynolds, et al. Access to early liver transplantation is adversely impacted by social determinants of health: A retrospective cohort study. Li...

    2025

  7. [15]

    M. A. Hern \'a n and J. M. Robins. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. American journal of epidemiology, 183 0 (8): 0 758--764, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    M. A. Hern \'a n, S. Hern \'a ndez-D \' az, and J. M. Robins. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology, 15 0 (5): 0 615--625, 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    S. E. Khorsandi, H. J. Hardgrave, T. Osborn, G. Klutts, J. Nigh, R. T. Spencer-Cole, C. D. Kakos, I. Anastasiou, M. N. Mavros, and E. Giorgakis. Artificial intelligence in liver transplantation. In Transplantation Proceedings, volume 53, pages 2939--2944. Elsevier, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Malinsky, I

    D. Malinsky, I. Shpitser, and T. Richardson. A potential outcomes calculus for identifying conditional path-specific effects. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 3080--3088. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    A. K. Mathur, D. E. Schaubel, Q. Gong, M. K. Guidinger, and R. M. Merion. Racial and ethnic disparities in access to liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation, 16 0 (9): 0 1033--1040, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    M. B. Mathur and I. Shpitser. Simple graphical rules for assessing selection bias in general-population and selected-sample treatment effects. American Journal of Epidemiology, 194 0 (1): 0 267--277, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    L. D. Nephew and M. Serper. Racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities in liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation, 27 0 (6): 0 900--912, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Obermeyer, B

    Z. Obermeyer, B. Powers, C. Vogeli, and S. Mullainathan. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366 0 (6464): 0 447--453, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    L. R. Park, E. Preston, H. Eskridge, E. R. King, and K. D. Brown. Sound opportunities: factors that impact referral for pediatric cochlear implant evaluation. The Laryngoscope, 131 0 (12): 0 E2904--E2910, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    J. Pearl. Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 411--420, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    J. Pearl. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    T. S. Richardson and J. M. Robins. Single world intervention graphs: a primer. In Second UAI workshop on causal structure learning, Bellevue, Washington. Citeseer, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    J. Robins. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical modelling, 7 0 (9-12): 0 1393--1512, 1986

    1986

  20. [28]

    J. M. Robins and S. Greenland. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 3 0 (2): 0 143--155, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    J. M. Robins and T. S. Richardson. Alternative graphical causal models and the identification of direct effects. Causality and psychopathology: Finding the determinants of disorders and their cures, 84: 0 103--158, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    J. M. Robins, T. S. Richardson, and I. Shpitser. An interventionist approach to mediation analysis. In Probabilistic and causal inference: the works of Judea Pearl, pages 713--764. 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    M. R. Robinson, L. C. Daniel, E. A. O’Hara, M. M. Szabo, and L. P. Barakat. Insurance status as a sociodemographic risk factor for functional outcomes and health-related quality of life among youth with sickle cell disease. Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology, 36 0 (1): 0...

    2014

  24. [32]

    Robitschek, A

    E. Robitschek, A. Bastani, K. Horwath, S. Sordean, M. J. Pletcher, J. C. Lai, S. Galletta, E. Ash, J. Ge, and I. Y. Chen. A large language model-based approach to quantifying the effects of social determinants in liver transplant decisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07924, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. Shi, C. Choirat, B. A. Coull, T. J. VanderWeele, and L. Valeri. Cmaverse: a suite of functions for reproducible causal mediation analyses. Epidemiology, 32 0 (5): 0 e20--e22, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Shpitser

    I. Shpitser. Counterfactual graphical models for longitudinal mediation analysis with unobserved confounding. Cognitive science, 37 0 (6): 0 1011--1035, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Shpitser and E

    I. Shpitser and E. Sherman. Identification of personalized effects associated with causal pathways. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, volume 2018, page 198, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Shpitser and E

    I. Shpitser and E. Tchetgen Tchetgen. Causal inference with a graphical hierarchy of interventions. The Annals of Statistics, pages 2433--2466, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Spann, A

    A. Spann, A. T. Strauss, S. E. Davis, and M. Bhat. The role of artificial intelligence in chronic liver diseases and liver transplantation. Gastroenterology, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Stepanova, S

    M. Stepanova, S. Al Qahtani, A. Mishra, I. Younossi, C. Venkatesan, and Z. M. Younossi. Outcomes of liver transplantation by insurance types in the united states. Am J Manag Care, 26 0 (4): 0 e121--e126, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    A. T. Strauss, C. N. Sidoti, T. S. Purnell, H. C. Sung, J. W. Jackson, S. Levin, V. S. Jain, D. Malinsky, D. L. Segev, J. P. Hamilton, J. Garonzik-Wang, S. H. Gray, M. L. Levan, J. R. Scalea, A. M. Cameron, A. Gurakar, and A. P. Gurses. Multicenter study of racial and ethnic i...

    2022

  32. [40]

    A. T. Strauss, E. Moughames, J. W. Jackson, D. Malinsky, D. L. Segev, J. P. Hamilton, J. Garonzik-Wang, A. Gurakar, A. Cameron, L. Dean, E. Klein, S. Levin, and T. S. Purnell. Critical interactions between race and the highly granular area deprivation index in liver transplant...

    2023

  33. [41]

    A. T. Strauss, C. N. Sidoti, H. C. Sung, V. S. Jain, H. Lehmann, T. S. Purnell, J. W. Jackson, D. Malinsky, J. P. Hamilton, J. Garonzik-Wang, S. H. Gray, M. L. Levan, J. S. Hinson, A. P. Gurses, A. Gurakar, D. L. Segev, and S. Levin. Artificial intelligence-based clinical deci...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Van der Zander, M

    B. Van der Zander, M. Liskiewicz, and J. Textor. Constructing separators and adjustment sets in ancestral graphs. In CI@ UAI, pages 11--24, 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    VanderWeele and S

    T. VanderWeele and S. Vansteelandt. Mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiologic methods, 2 0 (1): 0 95--115, 2014

    2014

  36. [44]

    T. J. VanderWeele. A three-way decomposition of a total effect into direct, indirect, and interactive effects. Epidemiology, 24 0 (2): 0 224--232, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    T. J. VanderWeele. Mediation analysis: a practitioner's guide. Annual review of public health, 37 0 (1): 0 17--32, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Vansteelandt, M

    S. Vansteelandt, M. Bekaert, and T. Lange. Imputation strategies for the estimation of natural direct and indirect effects. Epidemiologic Methods, 1 0 (1): 0 131--158, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    Warren, A.-M

    C. Warren, A.-M. Carpenter, D. Neal, K. Andreoni, G. Sarosi, and A. Zarrinpar. Racial disparity in liver transplantation listing. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 232 0 (4): 0 526--534, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    J. Xu, Y. Xiao, W. H. Wang, Y. Ning, E. A. Shenkman, J. Bian, and F. Wang. Algorithmic fairness in computational medicine. EBioMedicine, 84, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Yilma, R

    M. Yilma, R. Cogan, A. M. Shui, J. M. Neuhaus, C. Light, H. Braun, N. Mehta, and R. Hirose. Community-level social vulnerability and individual socioeconomic status on liver transplant referral outcome. Hepatology Communications, 7 0 (7): 0 e00196, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.