MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327973727 · doi:10.3390/a16030166

Framework for Evaluating Potential Causes of Health Risk Factors Using Average Treatment Effect and Uplift Modelling

2023· article· en· W4327973727 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniela Galatro, Rosario Trigo-Ferre, Allana Nakashook-Zettler, V. Costanzo-Álvarez, Melanie Jeffrey, Maria Jácome, Jason Bazylak, Cristina H. Amon

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsHumber PolytechnicUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCausationCounterfactual thinkingLogistic regressionStatisticsComputer scienceEconometricsPsychologyMachine learningMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a type of blood cancer that affects both adults and children. Benzene exposure has been reported to increase the risk of developing AML in children. The assessment of the potential relationship between environmental benzene exposure and childhood has been documented in the literature using odds ratios and/or risk ratios, with data fitted to unconditional logistic regression. A common feature of the studies involving relationships between environmental risk factors and health outcomes is the lack of proper analysis to evidence causation. Although statistical causal analysis is commonly used to determine causation by evaluating a distribution’s parameters, it is challenging to infer causation in complex systems from single correlation coefficients. Machine learning (ML) approaches, based on causal pattern recognition, can provide an accurate alternative to model counterfactual scenarios. In this work, we propose a framework using average treatment effect (ATE) and Uplift modeling to evidence causation when relating exposure to benzene indoors and outdoors to childhood AML, effectively predicting causation when exposed indoors to this contaminant. An analysis of the assumptions, cross-validation, sample size, and interaction between predictors are also provided, guiding future works looking at the universalization of this approach in predicting health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.314
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207