Kaddour, J., Lynch, A., Liu, Q., Kusner, M. J. & Silva, R. Causal machine learning: a survey and open problems. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.15475 (2022).
Yoon, J., Jordon, J. & van der Schaar, M. GANITE: estimation of individualized treatment effects using generative adversarial nets. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2018).
Evans, W. E. & Relling, M. V. Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapeutics. Science 286, 487–491 (1999).
Google Scholar
Esteva, A. et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat. Med. 25, 24–29 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kopitar, L., Kocbek, P., Cilar, L., Sheikh, A. & Stiglic, G. Early detection of type 2 diabetes mellitus using machine learning-based prediction models. Sci. Rep. 10, 11981 (2020).
Google Scholar
Alaa, A. M., Bolton, T., Di Angelantonio, E., Rudd, J. H. & van der Schaar, M. Cardiovascular disease risk prediction using automated machine learning: a prospective study of 423,604 UK Biobank participants. PLoS ONE 14, e0213653 (2019).
Cahn, A. et al. Prediction of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes: development and validation of a machine learning model. Diabetes/Metab. Res. Rev. 36, e3252 (2020).
Google Scholar
Zueger, T. et al. Machine learning for predicting the risk of transition from prediabetes to diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 842–847 (2022).
Google Scholar
Krittanawong, C. et al. Machine learning prediction in cardiovascular diseases: a metaanalysis. Sci. Rep. 10, 16057 (2020).
Google Scholar
Xie, Y. et al. Comparative effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and sulfonylureas on risk of major adverse cardiovascular events: Emulation of a randomised target trial using electronic health records. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 11, 644–656 (2023).
Google Scholar
Deng, Y. et al. Comparative effectiveness of second line glucose lowering drug treatments using real world data: emulation of a target trial. BMJ Med. 2, e000419 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kalia, S. et al. Emulating a target trial using primary-care electronic health records: sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor medications and hemoglobin A1c. Am. J. Epidemiol. 192, 782–789 (2023).
Google Scholar
Petito, L. C. et al. Estimates of overall survival in patients with cancer receiving different treatment regimens: emulating hypothetical target trials in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked database. JAMA Netw. Open 3, e200452 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66, 688–701 (1974).
Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100, 322–331 (2005).
Google Scholar
Robins, J. M. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Commun. Stat. 23, 2379–2412 (1994).
Google Scholar
Robins, J. M. Robust estimation in sequentially ignorable missing data and causal inference models. In 1999 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association on Bayesian Statistical Science 6–10 (2000).
Holland, P. W. Statistics and causal inference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 945–960 (1986).
Google Scholar
Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Hemkens, L. G. et al. Interpretation of epidemiologic studies very often lacked adequate consideration of confounding. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 93, 94–102 (2018).
Google Scholar
Dang, L. E. et al. A causal roadmap for generating high-quality real-world evidence. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7, e212 (2023).
Google Scholar
Petersen, M. L. & van der Laan, M. J. Causal models and learning from data: integrating causal modeling and statistical estimation. Epidemiology 25, 418–426 (2014).
Google Scholar
van der Laan, M. J. & Rubin, D. Targeted maximum likelihood learning. Int. J. Biostatistics 2, 11 (2006).
Google Scholar
Hirano, K. & Imbens, G. W. in Applied Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference from Incomplete-Data Perspectives: An Essential Journey with Donald Rubin’s Statistical Family (eds Gelman, A. & Meng, X.-L.) Ch. 7 (John Wiley & Sons, 2004).
Specht, L. et al. Modern radiation therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma: field and dose guidelines from the international lymphoma radiation oncology group (ILROG). Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 89, 854–862 (2014).
Google Scholar
van Geloven, N. et al. Prediction meets causal inference: the role of treatment in clinical prediction models. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 35, 619–630 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. H. Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects. Electron. J. Stat. 17, 3008–3049 (2023).
Google Scholar
Imbens, G. W. & Rubin, D. B. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Google Scholar
Chen, J., Vargas-Bustamante, A., Mortensen, K. & Ortega, A. N. Racial and ethnic disparities in health care access and utilization under the Affordable Care Act. Med. Care 54, 140–146 (2016).
Google Scholar
Cinelli, C., Forney, A. & Pearl, J. A crash course in good and bad controls. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221099552 (2022).
Laffers, L. & Mellace, G. Identification of the average treatment effect when SUTVA is violated. Department of Economics SDU. Discussion Papers on Business and Economics No. 3 (University of Southern Denmark, 2020).
Huber, M. & Steinmayr, A. A framework for separating individual-level treatment effects from spillover effects. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 39, 422–436 (2021).
Syrgkanis, V. et al. Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects with instruments. In Proc. 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Wallach, H. M. & Larochelle, H.) 15193–15202 (NeurIPS, 2019).
Frauen, D. & Feuerriegel, S. Estimating individual treatment effects under unobserved confounding using binary instruments. In Proc. 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2023).
Lim, B. Forecasting treatment responses over time using recurrent marginal structural networks. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (eds Bengio, H. et al.) (NeurIPS, 2018).
Liu, R., Yin, C. & Zhang, P. Estimating individual treatment effects with time-varying confounders. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) 382–391 (IEEE, 2020).
Li, R. et al. G-Net: a deep learning approach to G-computation for counterfactual outcome prediction under dynamic treatment regimes. In Proc. Machine Learning for Health (eds Roy, S. et al.) 282–299 (PMLR, 2021).
Bica, I., Alaa, A. M., Jordon, J. & van der Schaar, M. Estimating counterfactual treatment outcomes over time through adversarially balanced representations. In Proc. 8th International Conference on Learning Representations 11790–11817 (ICLR, 2020).
Liu, R., Hunold, K. M., Caterino, J. M. & Zhang, P. Estimating treatment effects for time-to-treatment antibiotic stewardship in sepsis. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 421–431 (2023).
Google Scholar
Melnychuk, V., Frauen, D. & Feuerriegel, S. Causal transformer for estimating counterfactual outcomes. In Proc. 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Chaudhuri, K. et al.) 15293–15329 (PMLR, 2022).
Schulam, P. & Saria, S. Reliable decision support using counterfactual models. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds von Luxburg, U. et al.) 1696–1706 (NeurIPS, 2017).
Vanderschueren, T., Curth, A., Verbeke, W. & van der Schaar, M. Accounting for informative sampling when learning to forecast treatment outcomes over time. In Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Krause, A. et al.) 34855–34874 (PMLR, 2023).
Seedat, N., Imrie, F., Bellot, A., Qian, Z. & van der Schaar, M. Continuous-time modeling of counterfactual outcomes using neural controlled differential equations. In Proc. 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Chaudhuri, K. et al.) 19497–19521 (PMLR, 2022).
Hess, K., Melnychuk, V., Frauen, D. & Feuerriegel, S. Bayesian neural controlled differential equations for treatment effect estimation. In Proc. 12th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2024).
Hatt, T., Berrevoets, J., Curth, A., Feuerriegel, S. & van der Schaar, M. Combining observational and randomized data for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.12891 (2022).
Colnet, B. et al. Causal inference methods for combining randomized trials and observational studies: a review. Stat. Sci. 39, 165–191 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kallus, N., Puli, A. M. & Shalit, U. Removing hidden confounding by experimental grounding. In Proc. 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Bengio, S. et al.) 10888–10897 (NeurIPS, 2018).
van der Laan, M. J., Polley, E. C. & Hubbard, A. E. Super learner. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 6, 25 (2007).
van der Laan, M. J. & Rose, S. Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data 1st edn (Springer, 2011).
Zheng, W. & van der Laan, M. J. in Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data 1st edn, 459–474 (Springer, 2011).
Díaz, I. & van der Laan, M. J. Targeted data adaptive estimation of the causal dose–response curve. J. Causal Inference 1, 171–192 (2013).
Google Scholar
Luedtke, A. R. & van der Laan, M. J. Super-learning of an optimal dynamic treatment rule. Int. J. Biostatistics 12, 305–332 (2016).
Google Scholar
Künzel, S. R., Sekhon, J. S., Bickel, P. J. & Yu, B. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4156–4165 (2019).
Google Scholar
Curth, A. & van der Schaar, M. Nonparametric estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects: From theory to learning algorithms. In Proc. 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (eds Banerjee, A. & Fukumizu, K.) 1810–1818 (PMLR, 2021).
Athey, S. & Imbens, G. Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7353–7360 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wager, S. & Athey, S. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113, 1228–1242 (2018).
Google Scholar
Athey, S., Tibshirani, J. & Wager, S. Generalized random forests. Ann. Stat. 47, 1148–1178 (2019).
Google Scholar
Shalit, U., Johansson, F. D. & Sontag, D. Estimating individual treatment effect: generalization bounds and algorithms. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Precup, D. & Teh, Y. W.) 3076–3085 (PMLR, 2017).
Shi, C., Blei, D. & Veitch, V. Adapting neural networks for the estimation of treatment effects. In Proc. 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Wallach, H. M. et al.) 2496–2506 (NeurIPS, 2019).
Bach, P., Chernozhukov, V., Kurz, M. S. & Spindler, M. DoubleML: an object-oriented implementation of double machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 23, 2469–2474 (2022).
Foster, D. J. & Syrgkanis, V. Orthogonal statistical learning. Ann. Stat. 51, 879–908 (2023).
Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. H., Ma, Z., McHugh, M. D. & Small, D. S. Nonparametric methods for doubly robust estimation of continuous treatment effects. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 79, 1229–1245 (2017).
Google Scholar
Nie, L., Ye, M., Liu, Q. & Nicolae, D. VCNet and functional targeted regularization for learning causal effects of continuous treatments. In Proc. 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2021).
Bica, I., Jordon, J. & van der Schaar, M. Estimating the effects of continuous-valued interventions using generative adversarial networks. In Proc. 34th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Larochelle, H. et al.) (NeurIPS, 2020).
Hill, J. L. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Computational Graph. Stat. 20, 217–240 (2011).
Google Scholar
Schwab, P., Linhardt, L., Bauer, S., Buhmann, J. M. & Karlen, W. Learning counterfactual representations for estimating individual dose-response curves. In Proc. 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 5612–5619 (AAAI, 2020).
Schweisthal, J., Frauen, D., Melnychuk, V. & Feuerriegel, S. Reliable off-policy learning for dosage combinations. In Proc. 37th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, 2023).
Melnychuk, V., Frauen, D. & Feuerriegel, S. Normalizing flows for interventional density estimation. In Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Krause, A. et al.) 24361–24397 (PMLR, 2023).
Banerji, C. R., Chakraborti, T., Harbron, C. & MacArthur, B. D. Clinical AI tools must convey predictive uncertainty for each individual patient. Nat. Med. 29, 2996–2998 (2023).
Google Scholar
Alaa, A. M. & van der Schaar, M. Bayesian inference of individualized treatment effects using multi-task Gaussian processes. In Proc. 31st Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds von Luxburg, U. et al.) 3425–3433 (NeurIPS, 2017).
Alaa, A., Ahmad, Z. & van der Laan, M. Conformal meta-learners for predictive inference of individual treatment effects. In Proc. 37th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Oh, A. et al.) (NeurIPS, 2023).
Curth, A., Svensson, D., Weatherall, J. & van der Schaar, M. Really doing great at estimating CATE? A critical look at ML benchmarking practices in treatment effect estimation. In Proc. 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (eds Vanschoren, J. & Yeung, S.-K.) (NeurIPS, 2021).
Boyer, C. B., Dahabreh, I. J. & Steingrimsson, J. A. Assessing model performance for counterfactual predictions. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.13026 (2023).
Keogh, R. H. & van Geloven, N. Prediction under interventions: evaluation of counterfactual performance using longitudinal observational data. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.10005 (2023).
Curth, A. & van der Schaar, M. In search of insights, not magic bullets: towards demystification of the model selection dilemma in heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. In Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Krause, A. et al.) 6623–6642 (PMLR, 2023).
Sharma, A., Syrgkanis, V., Zhang, C. & Kıcıman, E. DoWhy: addressing challenges in expressing and validating causal assumptions. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.13518 (2021).
Vokinger, K. N., Feuerriegel, S. & Kesselheim, A. S. Mitigating bias in machine learning for medicine. Commun. Med. 1, 25 (2021).
Google Scholar
Petersen, M. L., Porter, K. E., Gruber, S., Wang, Y. & van der Laan, M. J. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 21, 31–54 (2012).
Jesson, A., Mindermann, S., Shalit, U. & Gal, Y. Identifying causal-effect inference failure with uncertainty-aware models. In Proc. 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Larochelle, H. et al.) 11637–11649 (NeurIPS, 2020).
Rudolph, K. E. et al. When effects cannot be estimated: redefining estimands to understand the effects of naloxone access laws. Epidemiology 33, 689–698 (2022).
Google Scholar
Cornfield, J. et al. Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 22, 173–203 (1959).
Google Scholar
Frauen, D., Melnychuk, V. & Feuerriegel, S. Sharp bounds for generalized causal sensitivity analysis. In Proc. 37th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Oh, A. et al.) (NeurIPS, 2023).
Kallus, N., Mao, X. & Zhou, A. Interval estimation of individual-level causal effects under unobserved confounding. In Proc. 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (eds Chaudhuri, K. & Sugiyama, M.) 2281–2290 (PMLR, 2019).
Jin, Y., Ren, Z. & Candès, E. J. Sensitivity analysis of individual treatment effects: a robust conformal inference approach. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2214889120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Dorn, J. & Guo, K. Sharp sensitivity analysis for inverse propensity weighting via quantile balancing. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 118, 2645–2657 (2023).
Google Scholar
Oprescu, M. et al. B-learner: quasi-oracle bounds on heterogeneous causal effects under hidden confounding. In Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (eds Krause, A. et al.) 26599–26618 (PMLR, 2023).
Hernán, M. A. & Robins, J. M. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183, 758–764 (2016).
Google Scholar
Xu, J. et al. Protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for causal and counterfactual prediction models in biomedicine. BMJ Open 12, e059715 (2022).
Google Scholar
Fournier, J. C. et al. Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-analysis. JAMA 303, 47–53 (2010).
Google Scholar
Booth, C. M., Karim, S. & Mackillop, W. J. Real-world data: towards achieving the achievable in cancer care. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 16, 312–325 (2019).
Google Scholar
Chien, I. et al. Multi-disciplinary fairness considerations in machine learning for clinical trials. In Proc. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FACCT ’22) 906–924 (ACM, 2022).
Ross, E. L. et al. Estimated average treatment effect of psychiatric hospitalization in patients with suicidal behaviors: a precision treatment analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 81, 135–143 (2023).
Google Scholar
Cole, S. R. & Stuart, E. A. Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the ACTG 320 trial. Am. J. Epidemiol. 172, 107–115 (2010).
Google Scholar
Hatt, T., Tschernutter, D. & Feuerriegel, S. Generalizing off-policy learning under sample selection bias. In Proc. 38th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (eds Cussens, J. & Zhang, K.) 769–779 (PMLR, 2022).
Sherman, R. E. et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2293–2297 (2016).
Google Scholar
Norgeot, B. et al. Minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling: the MI-CLAIM checklist. Nat. Med. 26, 1320–1324 (2020).
Google Scholar
Von Elm, E. et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370, 1453–1457 (2007).
Google Scholar
Nie, X. & Wager, S. Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika 108, 299–319 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chernozhukov, V. et al. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econom. J. 21, C1–C68 (2018).
Google Scholar
Morzywołek, P., Decruyenaere, J. & Vansteelandt, S. On a general class of orthogonal learners for the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12687 (2023).
