ArticleNature machine intelligence2023
Active Learning for Optimal Intervention Design in Causal Models.
Article in Nature machine intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pop-Corn: Predicting Perturbation Phenotype Effects Across Single-Cell and Spatial Contexts.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Learning genetic perturbation effects with variational causal inference.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Decoding cell fate: integrated experimental and computational analysis at the single-cell level.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- MORPH Predicts the Single-Cell Outcome of Genetic Perturbations Across Conditions and Data Modalities.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Advancing genetic engineering with active learning: theory, implementations and potential opportunities.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Learning Genetic Perturbation Effects with Variational Causal Inference.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Unlocking human immune system complexity through AI.Nature methods · 2024Article
- Current and future directions in network biology.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Building a two-way street between cell biology and machine learning.Nature cell biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sequential experimental design to discover interventions that achieve a desired outcome is a key problem in various domains including science, engineering and public policy. When the space of possible interventions is large, making an exhaustive search infeasible, experimental design strategies are needed. In this context, encoding the causal relationships between the variables, and thus the effect of interventions on the system, is critical for identifying desirable interventions more efficiently. Here, we develop a causal active learning strategy to identify interventions that are optimal, as measured by the discrepancy between the post-interventional mean of the distribution and a desired target mean. The approach employs a Bayesian update for the causal model and prioritizes interventions using a carefully designed, causally informed acquisition function. This acquisition function is evaluated in closed form, allowing for fast optimization. The resulting algorithms are theoretically grounded with information-theoretic bounds and provable consistency results for linear causal models with known causal graph. We apply our approach to both synthetic data and single-cell transcriptomic data from Perturb-CITE-seq experiments to identify optimal perturbations that induce a specific cell state transition. The causally informed acquisition function generally outperforms existing criteria allowing for optimal intervention design with fewer but carefully selected samples.
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.