ArticleBiometrika2025
Post-selection inference for causal effects after causal discovery.
Article in Biometrika, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advanced analysis of formulation parameters governing encapsulation efficiency: drug delivery system.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Algorithms for constraint-based causal discovery select graphical causal models among a space of possible candidates (e.g., all directed acyclic graphs) by executing a sequence of conditional independence tests. These may be used to inform the estimation of causal effects (e.g., average treatment effects) when there is uncertainty about which covariates ought to be adjusted for, or which variables act as confounders versus mediators. However, naively using the data twice, for model selection and estimation, would lead to invalid confidence intervals. Moreover, if the selected graph is incorrect, the inferential claims may apply to a selected functional that is distinct from the actual causal effect. We propose an approach to post-selection inference that is based on a resampling and screening procedure, which essentially performs causal discovery multiple times with randomly varying intermediate test statistics. Then, an estimate of the target causal effect and corresponding confidence sets are constructed from a union of individual graph-based estimates and intervals. We show that this construction has asymptotically correct coverage for the true causal effect parameter. Importantly, the guarantee holds for a fixed population-level effect, not a data-dependent or selection-dependent quantity. Most of our exposition focuses on the PC-algorithm for learning directed acyclic graphs and the multivariate Gaussian case for simplicity, but the approach is general and modular, so it may be used with other conditional independence based discovery algorithms and distributional families.
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.