Cargando…
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 n...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7860039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9 |
_version_ | 1783646859736121344 |
---|---|
author | Lin, Lijing Sperrin, Matthew Jenkins, David A. Martin, Glen P. Peek, Niels |
author_facet | Lin, Lijing Sperrin, Matthew Jenkins, David A. Martin, Glen P. Peek, Niels |
author_sort | Lin, Lijing |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7860039 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78600392021-02-04 A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions Lin, Lijing Sperrin, Matthew Jenkins, David A. Martin, Glen P. Peek, Niels Diagn Progn Res Review 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9. BioMed Central 2021-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7860039/ /pubmed/33536082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Review Lin, Lijing Sperrin, Matthew Jenkins, David A. Martin, Glen P. Peek, Niels A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
title | A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
title_full | A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
title_fullStr | A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
title_full_unstemmed | A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
title_short | A scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
title_sort | scoping review of causal methods enabling predictions under hypothetical interventions |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7860039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-021-00092-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT linlijing ascopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT sperrinmatthew ascopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT jenkinsdavida ascopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT martinglenp ascopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT peekniels ascopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT linlijing scopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT sperrinmatthew scopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT jenkinsdavida scopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT martinglenp scopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions AT peekniels scopingreviewofcausalmethodsenablingpredictionsunderhypotheticalinterventions |