Why Interpretable Causal Inference is Important for High-Stakes Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and How To Do It

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04920v1
• Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 18:03:35 GMT
• Title: Why Interpretable Causal Inference is Important for High-Stakes Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and How To Do It
• Authors: Harsh Parikh, Kentaro Hoffman, Haoqi Sun, Wendong Ge, Jin Jing, Rajesh Amerineni, Lin Liu, Jimeng Sun, Sahar Zafar, Aaron Struck, Alexander Volfovsky, Cynthia Rudin, M. Brandon Westover
• Abstract summary: We present a framework for interpretable estimation of causal effects for critically ill patients. We apply this framework to the effect of seizures and other potentially harmful electrical events in the brain on outcomes.
• Score: 80.24494623756839
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many fundamental problems affecting the care of critically ill patients lead to similar analytical challenges: physicians cannot easily estimate the effects of at-risk medical conditions or treatments because the causal effects of medical conditions and drugs are entangled. They also cannot easily perform studies: there are not enough high-quality data for high-dimensional observational causal inference, and RCTs often cannot ethically be conducted. However, mechanistic knowledge is available, including how drugs are absorbed into the body, and the combination of this knowledge with the limited data could potentially suffice -- if we knew how to combine them. In this work, we present a framework for interpretable estimation of causal effects for critically ill patients under exactly these complex conditions: interactions between drugs and observations over time, patient data sets that are not large, and mechanistic knowledge that can substitute for lack of data. We apply this framework to an extremely important problem affecting critically ill patients, namely the effect of seizures and other potentially harmful electrical events in the brain (called epileptiform activity -- EA) on outcomes. Given the high stakes involved and the high noise in the data, interpretability is critical for troubleshooting such complex problems. Interpretability of our matched groups allowed neurologists to perform chart reviews to verify the quality of our causal analysis. For instance, our work indicates that a patient who experiences a high level of seizure-like activity (75% high EA burden) and is untreated for a six-hour window, has, on average, a 16.7% increased chance of adverse outcomes such as severe brain damage, lifetime disability, or death. We find that patients with mild but long-lasting EA (average EA burden >= 50%) have their risk of an adverse outcome increased by 11.2%.

Related papers

• TrialBench: Multi-Modal Artificial Intelligence-Ready Clinical Trial Datasets [57.067409211231244]
  This paper presents meticulously curated AIready datasets covering multi-modal data (e.g., drug molecule, disease code, text, categorical/numerical features) and 8 crucial prediction challenges in clinical trial design. We provide basic validation methods for each task to ensure the datasets' usability and reliability. We anticipate that the availability of such open-access datasets will catalyze the development of advanced AI approaches for clinical trial design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T09:13:10Z)
• Event-Based Contrastive Learning for Medical Time Series [11.696805672885798]
  Event-Based Contrastive Learning (EBCL) is a method for learning embeddings of heterogeneous patient data. We demonstrate that EBCL can be used to construct models that yield improved performance on important downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-16T03:50:24Z)
• Learning interpretable causal networks from very large datasets, application to 400,000 medical records of breast cancer patients [1.2647816797166165]
  We report a more reliable and scalable causal discovery method (iMIIC) based on a general mutual information supremum principle. We showcase iMIIC on synthetic and real-life healthcare data from 396,179 breast cancer patients from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T15:18:19Z)
• Benchmarking Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Models through the Lens of Interpretability [82.29775890542967]
  Estimating personalized effects of treatments is a complex, yet pervasive problem. Recent developments in the machine learning literature on heterogeneous treatment effect estimation gave rise to many sophisticated, but opaque, tools. We use post-hoc feature importance methods to identify features that influence the model's predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-16T17:59:05Z)
• Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference [58.442274475425144]
  Since the average treatment effect measures the change in social welfare, even if positive, there is a risk of negative effect on, say, some 10% of the population. In this paper we consider how to nonetheless assess this important risk measure, formalized as the conditional value at risk (CVaR) of the ITE distribution. Some bounds can also be interpreted as summarizing a complex CATE function into a single metric and are of interest independently of being a bound.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T17:21:26Z)
• An introduction to causal reasoning in health analytics [2.199093822766999]
  We will try to highlight some of the drawbacks that may arise in traditional machine learning and statistical approaches to analyze the observational data. We will demonstrate the applications of causal inference in tackling some common machine learning issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T20:25:56Z)
• Causes of Effects: Learning individual responses from population data [23.593582720307207]
  We study the problem of individualization and its applications in medicine. For example, the probability of benefiting from a treatment concerns an individual having a favorable outcome if treated and an unfavorable outcome if untreated. We analyze and expand on existing research by applying bounds to the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS) along with graphical criteria and practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T12:38:11Z)
• HINT: Hierarchical Interaction Network for Trial Outcome Prediction Leveraging Web Data [56.53715632642495]
  Clinical trials face uncertain outcomes due to issues with efficacy, safety, or problems with patient recruitment. In this paper, we propose Hierarchical INteraction Network (HINT) for more general, clinical trial outcome predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T15:09:07Z)
• Robustness to Spurious Correlations via Human Annotations [100.63051542531171]
  We present a framework for making models robust to spurious correlations by leveraging humans' common sense knowledge of causality. Specifically, we use human annotation to augment each training example with a potential unmeasured variable. We then introduce a new distributionally robust optimization objective over unmeasured variables (UV-DRO) to control the worst-case loss over possible test-time shifts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T20:05:19Z)
• Estimation of Causal Effects in the Presence of Unobserved Confounding in the Alzheimer's Continuum [3.2489082010225494]
  We derive a causal graph from the current clinical knowledge on cause and effect in the Alzheimer's disease continuum. We show that identifiability of the causal effect requires all confounders to be known and measured. In our theoretical analysis, we prove that using the substitute confounder enables identifiability of the causal effect of neuroanatomy on cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:29:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.