Search

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.

Summary: Background: The hard endpoint of death is one of the most significant outcomes in both clinical practice and research settings. Our goal was to discover direct causes of longevity from medically accessible data. Methods: Using a framework that combines local causal discovery algorithms with discovery of maximally predictive and compact feature sets (the “Markov boundaries” of the response) and equivalence classes, we examined 186 variables and their relationships with survival over 27 years in 1507 participants, aged ≥71 years, of the longitudinal, community-based D-EPESE study. Findings: As few as 8-15 variables predicted longevity at 2-, 5- and 10-years with predictive performance (area under receiver operator characteristic curve) of 0·76 (95% CIs 0·69, 0·83), 0·76 (0·72, 0·81) and 0·66 (0·61, 0·71), respectively. Numbers of small high-density lipoprotein particles, younger age, and fewer pack years of cigarette smoking were the strongest determinants of longevity at 2-, 5- and 10-years, respectively. Physical function was a prominent predictor of longevity at all time horizons. Age and cognitive function contributed to predictions at 5 and 10 years. Age was not among the local 2-year prediction variables (although significant in univariable analysis), thus establishing that age is not a direct cause of 2-year longevity in the context of measured factors in our data that determine longevity. Interpretation: The discoveries in this study proceed from causal data science analyses of deep clinical and molecular phenotyping data in a community-based cohort of older adults with known lifespan. Funding: NIH/NIA R01AG054840, R01AG12765, and P30-AG028716, NIH/NIA Contract N01-AG-12102 and NCRR 1UL1TR002494-01.