ArticlePloS one2016
Detecting Causality by Combined Use of Multiple Methods: Climate and Brain Examples.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fast and effective pseudo transfer entropy for bivariate data-driven causal inference.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Partial cross mapping eliminates indirect causal influences.Nature communications · 2020Article
- The Human Organism as an Integrated Interaction Network: Recent Conceptual and Methodological Challenges.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Article
- Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets.Science advances · 2019Article
- Causality detection in cortical seizure dynamics using cross-dynamical delay differential analysis.Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Surrogate Data Preserving All the Properties of Ordinal Patterns up to a Certain Length.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences.Nature communications · 2019Review
- Brain Network Changes in Fatigued Drivers: A Longitudinal Study in a Real-World Environment Based on the Effective Connectivity Analysis and Actigraphy Data.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Assessment of resampling methods for causality testing: A note on the US inflation behavior.PloS one · 2017Article
- Correction: Detecting Causality by Combined Use of Multiple Methods: Climate and Brain Examples.PloS oneArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying causal relations from time series is the first step to understanding the behavior of complex systems. Although many methods have been proposed, few papers have applied multiple methods together to detect causal relations based on time series generated from coupled nonlinear systems with some unobserved parts. Here we propose the combined use of three methods and a majority vote to infer causality under such circumstances. Two of these methods are proposed here for the first time, and all of the three methods can be applied even if the underlying dynamics is nonlinear and there are hidden common causes. We test our methods with coupled logistic maps, coupled Rössler models, and coupled Lorenz models. In addition, we show from ice core data how the causal relations among the temperature, the CH4 level, and the CO2 level in the atmosphere changed in the last 800,000 years, a conclusion also supported by irregularly sampled data analysis. Moreover, these methods show how three regions of the brain interact with each other during the visually cued, two-choice arm reaching task. Especially, we demonstrate that this is due to bottom up influences at the beginning of the task, while there exist mutual influences between the posterior medial prefrontal cortex and the presupplementary motor area. Based on our results, we conclude that identifying causality with an appropriate ensemble of multiple methods ensures the validity of the obtained results more firmly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.