Step-by-step causal analysis of EHRs to ground decision-making.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-02-03 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000721
Matthieu Doutreligne, Tristan Struja, Judith Abecassis, Claire Morgand, Leo Anthony Celi, Gaël Varoquaux
{"title":"Step-by-step causal analysis of EHRs to ground decision-making.","authors":"Matthieu Doutreligne, Tristan Struja, Judith Abecassis, Claire Morgand, Leo Anthony Celi, Gaël Varoquaux","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Causal inference enables machine learning methods to estimate treatment effects of medical interventions from electronic health records (EHRs). The prevalence of such observational data and the difficulty for randomized controlled trials (RCT) to cover all population/treatment relationships make these methods increasingly attractive for studying causal effects. However, researchers should be wary of many pitfalls. We propose and illustrate a framework for causal inference estimating the effect of albumin on mortality in sepsis using an Intensive Care database (MIMIC-IV) and comparing various sensitivity analyses to results from RCTs as gold-standard. The first step is study design, using the target trial concept and the PICOT framework: Population (patients with sepsis), Intervention (combination of crystalloids and albumin for fluid resuscitation), Control (crystalloids only), Outcome (28-day mortality), Time (intervention start within 24h of admission). We show that too large treatment-initiation times induce immortal time bias. The second step is selection of the confounding variables based on expert knowledge. Increasingly adding confounders enables to recover the RCT results from observational data. As the third step, we assess the influence of multiple models with varying assumptions, showing that a doubly robust estimator (AIPW) with random forests proved to be the most reliable estimator. Results show that these steps are all important for valid causal estimates. A valid causal model can then be used to individualize decision making: subgroup analyses showed that treatment efficacy of albumin was better for patients >60 years old, males, and patients with septic shock. Without causal thinking, machine learning is not enough for optimal clinical decision on an individual patient level. Our step-by-step analytic framework helps avoiding many pitfalls of applying machine learning to EHR data, building models that avoid shortcuts and extract the best decision-making evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 2","pages":"e0000721"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11790099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Causal inference enables machine learning methods to estimate treatment effects of medical interventions from electronic health records (EHRs). The prevalence of such observational data and the difficulty for randomized controlled trials (RCT) to cover all population/treatment relationships make these methods increasingly attractive for studying causal effects. However, researchers should be wary of many pitfalls. We propose and illustrate a framework for causal inference estimating the effect of albumin on mortality in sepsis using an Intensive Care database (MIMIC-IV) and comparing various sensitivity analyses to results from RCTs as gold-standard. The first step is study design, using the target trial concept and the PICOT framework: Population (patients with sepsis), Intervention (combination of crystalloids and albumin for fluid resuscitation), Control (crystalloids only), Outcome (28-day mortality), Time (intervention start within 24h of admission). We show that too large treatment-initiation times induce immortal time bias. The second step is selection of the confounding variables based on expert knowledge. Increasingly adding confounders enables to recover the RCT results from observational data. As the third step, we assess the influence of multiple models with varying assumptions, showing that a doubly robust estimator (AIPW) with random forests proved to be the most reliable estimator. Results show that these steps are all important for valid causal estimates. A valid causal model can then be used to individualize decision making: subgroup analyses showed that treatment efficacy of albumin was better for patients >60 years old, males, and patients with septic shock. Without causal thinking, machine learning is not enough for optimal clinical decision on an individual patient level. Our step-by-step analytic framework helps avoiding many pitfalls of applying machine learning to EHR data, building models that avoid shortcuts and extract the best decision-making evidence.

逐步分析电子病历对地面决策的因果关系。
因果推理使机器学习方法能够从电子健康记录(EHRs)中估计医疗干预的治疗效果。这种观察性数据的普遍存在以及随机对照试验(RCT)难以覆盖所有人群/治疗关系,使得这些方法对研究因果效应越来越有吸引力。然而,研究人员应该警惕许多陷阱。我们提出并说明了一个因果推断框架,利用重症监护数据库(MIMIC-IV)估计白蛋白对败血症死亡率的影响,并将各种敏感性分析与作为金标准的随机对照试验结果进行比较。第一步是研究设计,使用目标试验概念和PICOT框架:人群(脓毒症患者)、干预(晶体和白蛋白联合进行液体复苏)、对照(仅晶体)、结局(28天死亡率)、时间(入院24小时内开始干预)。我们证明过大的治疗起始时间会引起不朽的时间偏差。第二步是基于专家知识的混杂变量选择。越来越多的混杂因素使得从观测数据中恢复RCT结果成为可能。作为第三步,我们评估了不同假设下多个模型的影响,表明具有随机森林的双鲁棒估计器(AIPW)被证明是最可靠的估计器。结果表明,这些步骤对于有效的因果估计都很重要。一个有效的因果模型可以用于个性化决策:亚组分析显示,白蛋白治疗效果更好的患者bb0 - 60岁,男性和脓毒性休克患者。如果没有因果思维,机器学习不足以在个体患者层面上做出最佳临床决策。我们的逐步分析框架有助于避免将机器学习应用于电子病历数据的许多陷阱,构建避免捷径的模型并提取最佳决策证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信