ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Causalized convergent cross-mapping and its approximate equivalence with directed information in causality analysis.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in causal discovery methods for ecological time series.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- A Multiscale Spatiotemporal Causal Mapping Algorithm for Revealing Neural Network Mechanisms of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Article
- Future Directions for Studying the Potential of Mammalian Dscam in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Alzheimer's Disease: Insights from Dose Sensitivity.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
- Impact of acidic and alkaline conditions on Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii interactions and their biofilms.Archives of microbiology · 2024Article
- EEG spectral attractors identify a geometric core of brain dynamics.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Causalized Convergent Cross Mapping and Its Implementation in Causality Analysis.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Convergent cross-mapping (CCM) has attracted increased attention recently due to its capability to detect causality in nonseparable systems under deterministic settings, which may not be covered by the traditional Granger causality. From an information-theoretic perspective, causality is often characterized as the directed information (DI) flowing from one side to the other. As information is essentially nondeterministic, a natural question is: does CCM measure DI flow? Here, we first causalize CCM so that it aligns with the presumption in causality analysis-the future values of one process cannot influence the past of the other, and then establish and validate the approximate equivalence of causalized CCM (cCCM) and DI under Gaussian variables through both theoretical derivations and fMRI-based brain network causality analysis. Our simulation result indicates that, in general, cCCM tends to be more robust than DI in causality detection. The underlying argument is that DI relies heavily on probability estimation, which is sensitive to data size as well as digitization procedures; cCCM, on the other hand, gets around this problem through geometric cross-mapping between the manifolds involved. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that cross-mapping provides an alternative way to evaluate DI and is potentially an effective technique for identifying both linear and nonlinear causal coupling in brain neural networks and other settings, either random or deterministic, or both.
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.