Challenges and Opportunities with Causal Discovery Algorithms: Application to Alzheimer’s Pathophysiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal Structure Discovery (CSD) is the problem of identifying causal relationships from large quantities of data through computational methods. With the limited ability of traditional association-based computational methods to discover causal relationships, CSD methodologies are gaining popularity. The goal of the study was to systematically examine whether (i) CSD methods can discover the known causal relationships from observational clinical data and (ii) to offer guidance to accurately discover known causal relationships. We used Alzheimer's disease (AD), a complex progressive disease, as a model because the well-established evidence provides a "gold-standard" causal graph for evaluation. We evaluated two CSD methods, Fast Causal Inference (FCI) and Fast Greedy Equivalence Search (FGES) in their ability to discover this structure from data collected by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). We used structural equation models (which is not designed for CSD) as control. We applied these methods under three scenarios defined by increasing amounts of background knowledge provided to the methods. The methods were evaluated by comparing the resulting causal relationships with the "gold standard" graph that was constructed from literature. Dedicated CSD methods managed to discover graphs that nearly coincided with the gold standard. For best results, CSD algorithms should be used with longitudinal data providing as much prior knowledge as possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.078 | 0.287 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".