Uncovering Cause and Effect in Biomedical Data

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

New methods are emerging to map relationships between variables and build more robust, interpretable AI for healthcare.

The system seeks to understand underlying causal structures, acknowledging that representation itself is not a static capture, but an evolving model subject to the inevitable entropy of complex relationships.
The system seeks to understand underlying causal structures, acknowledging that representation itself is not a static capture, but an evolving model subject to the inevitable entropy of complex relationships.

This review examines recent advances in causal discovery and representation learning, with a focus on techniques for inferring causal structure from observational and interventional biomedical data.

While deep learning excels at prediction, it often falters when tasked with understanding underlying causal mechanisms. This challenge motivates the work ‘Causal Structure and Representation Learning with Biomedical Applications’, which proposes a framework to integrate causal inference and representation learning, particularly leveraging the increasing availability of multi-modal biomedical data. The authors demonstrate how to effectively discover causal relationships from observational and interventional data, learn latent causal variables, and design optimal perturbations to maximize information gain. Can these methods unlock a deeper understanding of complex biological systems and ultimately improve biomedical decision-making?

Discerning Influence: The Limits of Correlation

Traditional statistical methods often struggle to distinguish between correlation and causation, leading to potentially inaccurate conclusions. Identifying a relationship doesn’t inherently establish influence; confounding factors or reverse causality can easily explain observed associations. Understanding underlying causal relationships – the mechanisms by which variables exert influence – is therefore critical for both accurate prediction and effective intervention. Accurate predictions require identifying true drivers, while effective interventions depend on manipulating those drivers to achieve desired effects.

A graphical model demonstrates multi-modal causal representation learning.
A graphical model demonstrates multi-modal causal representation learning.

Causal discovery aims to infer these relationships directly from data, moving beyond purely associational analyses. Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) visually represent variables as nodes and causal influences as directed edges, offering a powerful language for reasoning about cause and effect. They allow researchers to formally express assumptions and derive testable predictions, identifying confounding variables and estimating causal effects. Ultimately, unraveling causality isn’t merely a technical exercise, but a reflection of our desire to understand how systems evolve—for time relentlessly marches forward, and only through understanding internal mechanisms can we hope to predict their trajectory.

Algorithms for Uncovering Causality: Constraints and Scores

Constraint-based algorithms, such as the PC Algorithm, discern potential causal relationships by utilizing conditional independence tests. These methods begin with a fully connected graph and iteratively remove edges that fail these tests, pruning implausible links. Conversely, score-based methods evaluate competing causal models by assigning each a score reflecting its fit to the observed data, then optimizing to identify the most plausible structure. The selection of an appropriate scoring function is crucial for efficacy.

Both approaches fundamentally rely on accurately identifying conditional independence through statistical testing. The GAS Algorithm represents an efficient implementation of constraint-based learning, minimizing the number of tests needed to achieve a theoretical lower bound on complexity.

Active Experimentation: Guiding the Search for Causal Structures

Causal Experimental Design provides a framework for actively collecting data through interventions, moving beyond observational studies. This approach centers on systematically manipulating variables to assess their impact on outcomes, thereby establishing causal links. Optimization of experiment parameters—strength or timing—can be achieved through techniques like Bayesian Optimization, efficiently searching the experimental space.

An iterative intervention design process is illustrated, enabling sequential refinement of strategies.
An iterative intervention design process is illustrated, enabling sequential refinement of strategies.

Reinforcement learning offers a powerful method for iteratively selecting interventions that maximize information gain about the underlying causal structure. By treating the setup as a sequential decision-making problem, algorithms can learn to choose interventions that most effectively reduce uncertainty. This is particularly beneficial in complex systems where exhaustive experimentation is impractical. This active data collection is especially important in Causal Representation Learning, uncovering latent variables driving observed phenomena, allowing exploration of causal relationships even in complex, multi-modal settings.

The Foundation of Inference: Faithfulness and Graphical Models

The Faithfulness assumption critically links causal graphical models to observed data, positing that all, and only, the conditional independencies implied by the causal graph are present in the data. If two variables are conditionally independent according to the graph, they must also be independent in the observed data—and vice versa. D-separation provides a graphical criterion for determining these conditional independencies within a directed acyclic graph (DAG), identifying sets of variables that, when conditioned upon, render others independent.

While not universally true, the Faithfulness assumption provides a crucial theoretical foundation for many causal discovery algorithms, allowing researchers to reliably infer causal relationships under the condition that observed independence isn’t coincidental. Technical debt, in a sense, is the past’s mortgage paid by the present.

The pursuit of causal structures, as detailed in the paper, inherently acknowledges the transient nature of systems. Every discovered relationship, every inferred dependency within a Directed Acyclic Graph, is a snapshot in time, subject to decay and refinement. This resonates with the observation that ‘the eloquence of youth is that it knows nothing,’ as Blaise Pascal noted. The algorithms presented, particularly those dealing with unobserved variables and multi-modal data integration, attempt to construct models that account for this inherent incompleteness—to map the current state while anticipating future shifts. Refactoring, in this context, becomes a continuous dialogue with the past, a recalibration of assumptions based on new evidence, recognizing that perfect knowledge is an illusion. Every failure in model prediction, therefore, is not merely an error, but a signal from time itself.

What’s Next?

The pursuit of causal structure, as this work demonstrates, is fundamentally an exercise in charting decay. Each inferred dependency, each constructed Directed Acyclic Graph, is not a statement of permanence, but a snapshot of a system’s chronicle—a record of how interventions ripple through a network before entropy reasserts itself. The algorithms presented offer increasingly refined tools for this documentation, yet the assumption of faithfulness – that observed correlations reflect true causal relationships – remains a critical, and perhaps optimistic, simplification. The timeline of causal inference is littered with models that held briefly, then fractured under the weight of unobserved confounders or shifting systemic properties.

Future work will inevitably focus on the integration of multi-modal data, a necessary step toward a more complete, if never perfect, representation of reality. However, the true challenge lies not merely in collecting more data, but in developing frameworks that acknowledge the inherent limitations of any observational study. Deployment of these methods isn’t a culmination, but a moment on the timeline – a point from which inevitable model degradation will commence. Addressing this decay, perhaps through continual learning or adaptive causal models, will prove more fruitful than striving for a static, universally ‘correct’ depiction.

Ultimately, the field must confront the uncomfortable truth that causal discovery isn’t about finding the causal structure, but about building increasingly resilient approximations. The system will always outpace the model; the art lies in designing inference pipelines that age gracefully, acknowledging their own eventual obsolescence.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.04790.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-11-10 15:32