Causal Discovery with Missing Data in a Multicentric Clinical Study

Causal inference for testing clinical hypotheses from observational data presents many difficulties because the underlying data-generating model and the associated causal graph are not usually available. Furthermore, observational data may contain missing values, which impact the recovery of the causal graph by causal discovery algorithms: a crucial issue often ignored in clinical studies. In this work, we use data from a multi-centric study on endometrial cancer to analyze the impact of different missingness mechanisms on the recovered causal graph. This is achieved by extending state-of-the-art causal discovery algorithms to exploit expert knowledge without sacrificing theoretical soundness. We validate the recovered graph with expert physicians, showing that our approach finds clinically-relevant solutions. Finally, we discuss the goodness of fit of our graph and its consistency from a clinical decision-making perspective using graphical separation to validate causal pathways.

Risk Assessment of Lymph Node Metastases in Endometrial Cancer Patients: A Causal Approach

Assessing the pre-operative risk of lymph node metastases in endometrial cancer patients is a complex and challenging task. In principle, machine learning and deep learning models are flexible and expressive enough to capture the dynamics of clinical risk assessment. However, in this setting we are limited to observational data with quality issues, missing values, small sample size and high dimensionality: we cannot reliably learn such models from limited observational data with these sources of bias. Instead, we choose to learn a causal Bayesian network to mitigate the issues above and to leverage the prior knowledge on endometrial cancer available from clinicians and physicians. We introduce a causal discovery algorithm for causal Bayesian networks based on bootstrap resampling, as opposed to the single imputation used in related works. Moreover, we include a context variable to evaluate whether selection bias results in learning spurious associations. Finally, we discuss the strengths and limitations of our findings in light of the presence of missing data that may be missing-not-at-random, which is common in real-world clinical settings.