ArticleArtificial intelligence in medicine2017
An algorithm for direct causal learning of influences on patient outcomes.
Article in Artificial intelligence in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural causal model with expert augmented knowledge to estimate the effect of oxygen therapy on mortality in the ICU.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- Discovering Composite Lifestyle Biomarkers With Artificial Intelligence From Clinical Studies to Enable Smart eHealth and Digital Therapeutic Services.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- From hype to reality: data science enabling personalized medicine.BMC medicine · 2018Article
- Prevalence of hyperlipidemia in Shanxi Province, China and application of Bayesian networks to analyse its related factors.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims at developing and introducing a new algorithm, called direct causal learner (DCL), for learning the direct causal influences of a single target. We applied it to both simulated and real clinical and genome wide association study (GWAS) datasets and compared its performance to classic causal learning algorithms.
methodThe DCL algorithm learns the causes of a single target from passive data using Bayesian-scoring, instead of using independence checks, and a novel deletion algorithm. We generate 14,400 simulated datasets and measure the number of datasets for which DCL correctly and partially predicts the direct causes. We then compare its performance with the constraint-based path consistency (PC) and conservative PC (CPC) algorithms, the Bayesian-score based fast greedy search (FGS) algorithm, and the partial ancestral graphs algorithm fast causal inference (FCI). In addition, we extend our comparison of all five algorithms to both a real GWAS dataset and real breast cancer datasets over various time-points in order to observe how effective they are at predicting the causal influences of Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer survival.
resultsDCL consistently outperforms FGS, PC, CPC, and FCI in discovering the parents of the target for the datasets simulated using a simple network. Overall, DCL predicts significantly more datasets correctly (McNemar's test significance: p<<0.0001) than any of the other algorithms for these network types. For example, when assessing overall performance (simple and complex network results combined), DCL correctly predicts approximately 1400 more datasets than the top FGS method, 1600 more datasets than the top CPC method, 4500 more datasets than the top PC method, and 5600 more datasets than the top FCI method. Although FGS did correctly predict more datasets than DCL for the complex networks, and DCL correctly predicted only a few more datasets than CPC for these networks, there is no significant difference in performance between these three algorithms for this network type. However, when we use a more continuous measure of accuracy, we find that all the DCL methods are able to better partially predict more direct causes than FGS and CPC for the complex networks. In addition, DCL consistently had faster runtimes than the other algorithms. In the application to the real datasets, DCL identified rs6784615, located on the NISCH gene, and rs10824310, located on the PRKG1 gene, as direct causes of late onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) development. In addition, DCL identified ER category as a direct predictor of breast cancer mortality within 5 years, and HER2 status as a direct predictor of 10-year breast cancer mortality. These predictors have been identified in previous studies to have a direct causal relationship with their respective phenotypes, supporting the predictive power of DCL. When the other algorithms discovered predictors from the real datasets, these predictors were either also found by DCL or could not be supported by previous studies.
conclusionOur results show that DCL outperforms FGS, PC, CPC, and FCI in almost every case, demonstrating its potential to advance causal learning. Furthermore, our DCL algorithm effectively identifies direct causes in the LOAD and Metabric GWAS datasets, which indicates its potential for clinical applications.
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.