Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several 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. METHODS: Causal 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. RESULTS: Concurrent 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. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent 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.