ArticleJMIR medical informatics2023
Scalable Causal Structure Learning: Scoping Review of Traditional and Deep Learning Algorithms and New Opportunities in Biomedicine.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A causal discovery framework for analyzing the impact mechanism of generative AI on digital literacy: an LLM-based behavioral analysis approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- DAGs and GRaSP Causal Inference Algorithms Combined and Applied to the Calculation of Insulin Bolus in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Longitudinal multicohort evidence for bidirectional diabetes arthritis links in older adults.iScience · 2026Article
- An explainable machine learning framework for cardiovascular risk prediction using structured health data.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Identifying Common Disease Trajectories of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy with Electronic Health Records.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025Article
- Contribution of Structure Learning Algorithms in Social Epidemiology: Application to Real-World Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Statistical Learning Methods for Neuroimaging Data Analysis with Applications.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2023Review
- Counterfactual analysis of differential comorbidity risk factors in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCausal structure learning refers to a process of identifying causal structures from observational data, and it can have multiple applications in biomedicine and health care.
objectiveThis paper provides a practical review and tutorial on scalable causal structure learning models with examples of real-world data to help health care audiences understand and apply them.
methodsWe reviewed traditional (combinatorial and score-based) methods for causal structure discovery and machine learning-based schemes. Various traditional approaches have been studied to tackle this problem, the most important among these being the Peter Spirtes and Clark Glymour algorithms. This was followed by analyzing the literature on score-based methods, which are computationally faster. Owing to the continuous constraint on acyclicity, there are new deep learning approaches to the problem in addition to traditional and score-based methods. Such methods can also offer scalability, particularly when there is a large amount of data involving multiple variables. Using our own evaluation metrics and experiments on linear, nonlinear, and benchmark Sachs data, we aimed to highlight the various advantages and disadvantages associated with these methods for the health care community. We also highlighted recent developments in biomedicine where causal structure learning can be applied to discover structures such as gene networks, brain connectivity networks, and those in cancer epidemiology.
resultsWe also compared the performance of traditional and machine learning-based algorithms for causal discovery over some benchmark data sets. Directed Acyclic Graph-Graph Neural Network has the lowest structural hamming distance (19) and false positive rate (0.13) based on the Sachs data set, whereas Greedy Equivalence Search and Max-Min Hill Climbing have the best false discovery rate (0.68) and true positive rate (0.56), respectively.
conclusionsMachine learning-based approaches, including deep learning, have many advantages over traditional approaches, such as scalability, including a greater number of variables, and potentially being applied in a wide range of biomedical applications, such as genetics, if sufficient data are available. Furthermore, these models are more flexible than traditional models and are poised to positively affect many applications in the future.
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.