对在假设干预下进行预测的因果方法进行范围审查。

Lijing Lin, Matthew Sperrin, David A Jenkins, Glen P Martin, Niels Peek
{"title":"对在假设干预下进行预测的因果方法进行范围审查。","authors":"Lijing Lin, Matthew Sperrin, David A Jenkins, Glen P Martin, Niels Peek","doi":"10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The methods with which prediction models are usually developed mean that neither the parameters nor the predictions should be interpreted causally. For many applications, this is perfectly acceptable. However, when prediction models are used to support decision making, there is often a need for predicting outcomes under hypothetical interventions.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to identify published methods for developing and validating prediction models that enable risk estimation of outcomes under hypothetical interventions, utilizing causal inference. We aimed to identify the main methodological approaches, their underlying assumptions, targeted estimands, and potential pitfalls and challenges with using the method. Finally, we aimed to highlight unresolved methodological challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed literature published by December 2019, considering papers in the health domain that used causal considerations to enable prediction models to be used for predictions under hypothetical interventions. We included both methodologies proposed in statistical/machine learning literature and methodologies used in applied studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4919 papers through database searches and a further 115 papers through manual searches. Of these, 87 papers were retained for full-text screening, of which 13 were selected for inclusion. We found papers from both the statistical and the machine learning literature. Most of the identified methods for causal inference from observational data were based on marginal structural models and g-estimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There exist two broad methodological approaches for allowing prediction under hypothetical intervention into clinical prediction models: (1) enriching prediction models derived from observational studies with estimated causal effects from clinical trials and meta-analyses and (2) estimating prediction models and causal effects directly from observational data. These methods require extending to dynamic treatment regimes, and consideration of multiple interventions to operationalise a clinical decision support system. Techniques for validating 'causal prediction models' are still in their infancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":72800,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","volume":"5 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7860039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Lijing Lin, Matthew Sperrin, David A Jenkins, Glen P Martin, Niels Peek\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The methods with which prediction models are usually developed mean that neither the parameters nor the predictions should be interpreted causally. For many applications, this is perfectly acceptable. However, when prediction models are used to support decision making, there is often a need for predicting outcomes under hypothetical interventions.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to identify published methods for developing and validating prediction models that enable risk estimation of outcomes under hypothetical interventions, utilizing causal inference. We aimed to identify the main methodological approaches, their underlying assumptions, targeted estimands, and potential pitfalls and challenges with using the method. Finally, we aimed to highlight unresolved methodological challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed literature published by December 2019, considering papers in the health domain that used causal considerations to enable prediction models to be used for predictions under hypothetical interventions. We included both methodologies proposed in statistical/machine learning literature and methodologies used in applied studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4919 papers through database searches and a further 115 papers through manual searches. Of these, 87 papers were retained for full-text screening, of which 13 were selected for inclusion. We found papers from both the statistical and the machine learning literature. Most of the identified methods for causal inference from observational data were based on marginal structural models and g-estimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There exist two broad methodological approaches for allowing prediction under hypothetical intervention into clinical prediction models: (1) enriching prediction models derived from observational studies with estimated causal effects from clinical trials and meta-analyses and (2) estimating prediction models and causal effects directly from observational data. These methods require extending to dynamic treatment regimes, and consideration of multiple interventions to operationalise a clinical decision support system. Techniques for validating 'causal prediction models' are still in their infancy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7860039/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and prognostic research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and prognostic research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:通常用来建立预测模型的方法意味着参数和预测都不应该被解释为因果关系。对于许多应用程序,这是完全可以接受的。然而,当使用预测模型来支持决策时,通常需要预测假设干预措施下的结果。目的:我们旨在确定已发表的方法来开发和验证预测模型,这些模型可以利用因果推理对假设干预下的结果进行风险估计。我们的目标是确定主要的方法方法,它们的潜在假设,目标估计,以及使用该方法的潜在缺陷和挑战。最后,我们的目标是强调尚未解决的方法挑战。方法:我们系统地回顾了截至2019年12月发表的文献,考虑了健康领域的论文,这些论文使用因果关系考虑因素,使预测模型能够用于假设干预下的预测。我们包括了统计/机器学习文献中提出的方法和应用研究中使用的方法。结果:我们通过数据库检索确定了4919篇论文,通过人工检索确定了115篇论文。其中87篇论文被保留进行全文筛选,其中13篇入选。我们从统计学和机器学习文献中都找到了论文。根据观测数据进行因果推断的方法大多基于边际结构模型和g估计。结论:目前有两种广泛的方法可以将假设干预下的预测纳入临床预测模型:(1)丰富从观察性研究中得出的预测模型,并从临床试验和荟萃分析中估计因果效应;(2)直接从观察性数据中估计预测模型和因果效应。这些方法需要扩展到动态治疗方案,并考虑多种干预措施来实施临床决策支持系统。验证“因果预测模型”的技术仍处于起步阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions.

A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions.

Background: The methods with which prediction models are usually developed mean that neither the parameters nor the predictions should be interpreted causally. For many applications, this is perfectly acceptable. However, when prediction models are used to support decision making, there is often a need for predicting outcomes under hypothetical interventions.

Aims: We aimed to identify published methods for developing and validating prediction models that enable risk estimation of outcomes under hypothetical interventions, utilizing causal inference. We aimed to identify the main methodological approaches, their underlying assumptions, targeted estimands, and potential pitfalls and challenges with using the method. Finally, we aimed to highlight unresolved methodological challenges.

Methods: We systematically reviewed literature published by December 2019, considering papers in the health domain that used causal considerations to enable prediction models to be used for predictions under hypothetical interventions. We included both methodologies proposed in statistical/machine learning literature and methodologies used in applied studies.

Results: We identified 4919 papers through database searches and a further 115 papers through manual searches. Of these, 87 papers were retained for full-text screening, of which 13 were selected for inclusion. We found papers from both the statistical and the machine learning literature. Most of the identified methods for causal inference from observational data were based on marginal structural models and g-estimation.

Conclusions: There exist two broad methodological approaches for allowing prediction under hypothetical intervention into clinical prediction models: (1) enriching prediction models derived from observational studies with estimated causal effects from clinical trials and meta-analyses and (2) estimating prediction models and causal effects directly from observational data. These methods require extending to dynamic treatment regimes, and consideration of multiple interventions to operationalise a clinical decision support system. Techniques for validating 'causal prediction models' are still in their infancy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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