Causal thinking for decision making on Electronic Health Records: why and how
Authors:
Matthieu Doutreligne,
Tristan Struja,
Judith Abecassis,
Claire Morgand,
Leo Anthony Celi,
Gaël Varoquaux
Abstract:
Accurate predictions, as with machine learning, may not suffice to provide optimal healthcare for every patient. Indeed, prediction can be driven by shortcuts in the data, such as racial biases. Causal thinking is needed for data-driven decisions. Here, we give an introduction to the key elements, focusing on routinely-collected data, electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data. Using such da…
▽ More
Accurate predictions, as with machine learning, may not suffice to provide optimal healthcare for every patient. Indeed, prediction can be driven by shortcuts in the data, such as racial biases. Causal thinking is needed for data-driven decisions. Here, we give an introduction to the key elements, focusing on routinely-collected data, electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data. Using such data to assess the value of an intervention requires care: temporal dependencies and existing practices easily confound the causal effect. We present a step-by-step framework to help build valid decision making from real-life patient records by emulating a randomized trial before individualizing decisions, eg with machine learning. Our framework highlights the most important pitfalls and considerations in analysing EHRs or claims data to draw causal conclusions. We illustrate the various choices in studying the effect of albumin on sepsis mortality in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database (MIMIC-IV). We study the impact of various choices at every step, from feature extraction to causal-estimator selection. In a tutorial spirit, the code and the data are openly available.
△ Less
Submitted 7 September, 2023; v1 submitted 3 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
How to select predictive models for causal inference?
Authors:
Matthieu Doutreligne,
Gaël Varoquaux
Abstract:
As predictive models -- e.g., from machine learning -- give likely outcomes, they may be used to reason on the effect of an intervention, a causal-inference task. The increasing complexity of health data has opened the door to a plethora of models, but also the Pandora box of model selection: which of these models yield the most valid causal estimates? Here we highlight that classic machine-learni…
▽ More
As predictive models -- e.g., from machine learning -- give likely outcomes, they may be used to reason on the effect of an intervention, a causal-inference task. The increasing complexity of health data has opened the door to a plethora of models, but also the Pandora box of model selection: which of these models yield the most valid causal estimates? Here we highlight that classic machine-learning model selection does not select the best outcome models for causal inference. Indeed, causal model selection should control both outcome errors for each individual, treated or not treated, whereas only one outcome is observed. Theoretically, simple risks used in machine learning do not control causal effects when treated and non-treated population differ too much. More elaborate risks build proxies of the causal error using ``nuisance'' re-weighting to compute it on the observed data. But does computing these nuisance adds noise to model selection? Drawing from an extensive empirical study, we outline a good causal model-selection procedure: using the so-called $R\text{-risk}$; using flexible estimators to compute the nuisance models on the train set; and splitting out 10\% of the data to compute risks.
△ Less
Submitted 16 May, 2023; v1 submitted 1 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
