Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33536082›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2021

A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions.

Lijing Lin, Matthew Sperrin, David A Jenkins, Glen P Martin, Niels Peek

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lijing LinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. lijing.lin@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-8812
Matthew SperrinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
David A JenkinsDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Niels PeekDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Alan Turing Institute "Predictive Healthcare" project (Health and Medical Sciences Programme)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe methods with which prediction models are usually developed mean that neither the parameters nor the predictions should be interpreted causally. For many applications, this is perfectly acceptable. However, when prediction models are used to support decision making, there is often a need for predicting outcomes under hypothetical interventions.

aimsWe aimed to identify published methods for developing and validating prediction models that enable risk estimation of outcomes under hypothetical interventions, utilizing causal inference. We aimed to identify the main methodological approaches, their underlying assumptions, targeted estimands, and potential pitfalls and challenges with using the method. Finally, we aimed to highlight unresolved methodological challenges.

methodsWe systematically reviewed literature published by December 2019, considering papers in the health domain that used causal considerations to enable prediction models to be used for predictions under hypothetical interventions. We included both methodologies proposed in statistical/machine learning literature and methodologies used in applied studies.

resultsWe identified 4919 papers through database searches and a further 115 papers through manual searches. Of these, 87 papers were retained for full-text screening, of which 13 were selected for inclusion. We found papers from both the statistical and the machine learning literature. Most of the identified methods for causal inference from observational data were based on marginal structural models and g-estimation.

conclusionsThere exist two broad methodological approaches for allowing prediction under hypothetical intervention into clinical prediction models: (1) enriching prediction models derived from observational studies with estimated causal effects from clinical trials and meta-analyses and (2) estimating prediction models and causal effects directly from observational data. These methods require extending to dynamic treatment regimes, and consideration of multiple interventions to operationalise a clinical decision support system. Techniques for validating 'causal prediction models' are still in their infancy.

Indexed as

Causal inferenceClinical prediction modelsCounterfactual predictionStatistical modeling

Identifiers

PMID33536082
PMCPMC7860039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.