Comparing Causal Bayesian Networks Estimated from Data.

Sisi Ma, Roshan Tourani
Author Information
  1. Sisi Ma: Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. ORCID
  2. Roshan Tourani: Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

Abstract

The knowledge of the causal mechanisms underlying one single system may not be sufficient to answer certain questions. One can gain additional insights from comparing and contrasting the causal mechanisms underlying multiple systems and uncovering consistent and distinct causal relationships. For example, discovering common molecular mechanisms among different diseases can lead to drug repurposing. The problem of comparing causal mechanisms among multiple systems is non-trivial, since the causal mechanisms are usually unknown and need to be estimated from data. If we estimate the causal mechanisms from data generated from different systems and directly compare them (the naive method), the result can be sub-optimal. This is especially true if the data generated by the different systems differ substantially with respect to their sample sizes. In this case, the quality of the estimated causal mechanisms for the different systems will differ, which can in turn affect the accuracy of the estimated similarities and differences among the systems via the naive method. To mitigate this problem, we introduced the bootstrap estimation and the equal sample size resampling estimation method for estimating the difference between causal networks. Both of these methods use resampling to assess the confidence of the estimation. We compared these methods with the naive method in a set of systematically simulated experimental conditions with a variety of network structures and sample sizes, and using different performance metrics. We also evaluated these methods on various real-world biomedical datasets covering a wide range of data designs.

Keywords

References

  1. Mov Disord. 2017 Jun;32(6):810-819 [PMID: 28597557]
  2. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2020 Aug;40(8):329-344 [PMID: 32654419]
  3. Br J Psychiatry. 2019 Jun;214(6):339-344 [PMID: 31088591]
  4. Neural Comput. 2015 Mar;27(3):771-99 [PMID: 25602767]
  5. Neuroimage. 2008 Jun;41(2):398-407 [PMID: 18406629]
  6. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2545-59 [PMID: 18539917]
  7. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 18;367(16):1529-38 [PMID: 23075179]
  8. Psychol Med. 2023 Apr;53(5):2041-2049 [PMID: 37310333]
  9. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019 Jan;43(1):91-97 [PMID: 30371947]
  10. Nat Commun. 2018 May 23;9(1):2028 [PMID: 29795293]
  11. Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 22;9(1):4383 [PMID: 30348985]
  12. Biol Psychiatry. 2013 Oct 15;74(8):623-32 [PMID: 23541632]
  13. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 Dec;35(12):6032-48 [PMID: 25116862]
  14. Nat Methods. 2010 Apr;7(4):247-8 [PMID: 20354511]
  15. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Oct;124:74-91 [PMID: 28712971]
  16. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010 Dec;10(12):1847-57 [PMID: 21384698]
  17. JMLR Workshop Conf Proc. 2016 Aug;52:368-379 [PMID: 28239434]
  18. Exp Mol Med. 2020 Nov;52(11):1798-1808 [PMID: 33244151]
  19. Front Psychol. 2012 Apr 17;3:111 [PMID: 22529829]
  20. J Mach Learn Res. 2013 Feb;14:499-566 [PMID: 25285052]
  21. Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 25;11(1):21025 [PMID: 34697394]
  22. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Sep;21(9):1134-1136 [PMID: 32888447]
  23. Front Genet. 2019 Jun 04;10:524 [PMID: 31214249]
  24. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2020 May 7;16:49-74 [PMID: 32070120]
  25. Psychol Methods. 2007 Dec;12(4):399-413 [PMID: 18179351]
  26. N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16 [PMID: 26551272]

Grants

  1. P50MH119569/NIH HHS
  2. UM1TR004405/NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0causalmechanismssystemsdifferentcandatamethodamongestimatednaivesampleestimationresamplingmethodsunderlyingcomparingmultipleproblemgenerateddiffersizesnetworkBayesianknowledgeonesinglesystemmaysufficientanswercertainquestionsOnegainadditionalinsightscontrastinguncoveringconsistentdistinctrelationshipsexamplediscoveringcommonmoleculardiseasesleaddrugrepurposingnon-trivialsinceusuallyunknownneedestimatedirectlycompareresultsub-optimalespeciallytruesubstantiallyrespectcasequalitywillturnaffectaccuracysimilaritiesdifferencesviamitigateintroducedbootstrapequalsizeestimatingdifferencenetworksuseassessconfidencecomparedsetsystematicallysimulatedexperimentalconditionsvarietystructuresusingperformancemetricsalsoevaluatedvariousreal-worldbiomedicaldatasetscoveringwiderangedesignsComparingCausalNetworksEstimatedDatadiscoveryuncertainty

Similar Articles

Cited By