Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39535572›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024

Machine learning in causal inference for epidemiology.

Chiara Moccia, Giovenale Moirano, Maja Popovic, Costanza Pizzi, Piero Fariselli, Lorenzo Richiardi, Claus Thorn Ekstrøm, Milena Maule

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Causal Inference in Clinical Research: A Primer.Journal of periodontal research · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. When does algorithmic complexity add causal value in environmental epidemiology?Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Chiara MocciaCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin and CPO Piedmont, Via Santena 7, Turin, 10126, Italy. chiara.moccia@unito.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7970-8727
Giovenale MoiranoCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin and CPO Piedmont, Via Santena 7, Turin, 10126, Italy.
Maja PopovicCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin and CPO Piedmont, Via Santena 7, Turin, 10126, Italy.
Costanza PizziCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin and CPO Piedmont, Via Santena 7, Turin, 10126, Italy.
Piero FariselliDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Lorenzo RichiardiCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin and CPO Piedmont, Via Santena 7, Turin, 10126, Italy.
Claus Thorn EkstrømSection of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Milena MauleCancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin and CPO Piedmont, Via Santena 7, Turin, 10126, Italy.

Funding

Compagnia di San Paolo Bando ex-post - Anno 2018Horizon 2020 ATHLETE Project 87458Horizon 2020 Lifecycle Project 733206Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In causal inference, parametric models are usually employed to address causal questions estimating the effect of interest. However, parametric models rely on the correct model specification assumption that, if not met, leads to biased effect estimates. Correct model specification is challenging, especially in high-dimensional settings. Incorporating Machine Learning (ML) into causal analyses may reduce the bias arising from model misspecification, since ML methods do not require the specification of a functional form of the relationship between variables. However, when ML predictions are directly plugged in a predefined formula of the effect of interest, there is the risk of introducing a "plug-in bias" in the effect measure. To overcome this problem and to achieve useful asymptotic properties, new estimators that combine the predictive potential of ML and the ability of traditional statistical methods to make inference about population parameters have been proposed. For epidemiologists interested in taking advantage of ML for causal inference investigations, we provide an overview of three estimators that represent the current state-of-art, namely Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE), Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW) and Double/Debiased Machine Learning (DML).

Indexed as

CausalityMachine LearningEpidemiologic MethodsEpidemiologyHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalCausal inferenceDoubly-robustnessMachine learningTargeted learning

Identifiers

PMID39535572
PMCPMC11599438

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.