Aristotle: stratified causal discovery for omics data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a simultaneous increase in demand and accessibility across genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics data, known as omics data. This has encouraged widespread application of omics data in life sciences, from personalized medicine to the discovery of underlying pathophysiology of diseases. Causal analysis of omics data may provide important insight into the underlying biological mechanisms. Existing causal analysis methods yield promising results when identifying potential general causes of an observed outcome based on omics data. However, they may fail to discover the causes specific to a particular stratum of individuals and missing from others. METHODS: To fill this gap, we introduce the problem of stratified causal discovery and propose a method, Aristotle, for solving it. Aristotle addresses the two challenges intrinsic to omics data: high dimensionality and hidden stratification. It employs existing biological knowledge and a state-of-the-art patient stratification method to tackle the above challenges and applies a quasi-experimental design method to each stratum to find stratum-specific potential causes. RESULTS: Evaluation based on synthetic data shows better performance for Aristotle in discovering true causes under different conditions compared to existing causal discovery methods. Experiments on a real dataset on Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity indicate that Aristotle's predictions are consistent with the existing literature. Moreover, Aristotle makes additional predictions that suggest further investigations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it