From Unsupervised Subgroups to Hypothetical State-Intervention Policies: An Evaluation of Selected Subgrouping Methods in Observational Health Data

Conventional subgroup analyses can yield unstable and difficult-to-interpret conclusions, especially in observational biomedical data where each individual is observed under only one exposure state, true individual treatment effects are unavailable, and causal structure is uncertain. We investigate whether subgroups constructed from pretreatment characteristics, without using exposure, outcome, or estimated treatment-effect information, can serve as interpretable units for budget-constrained policy prioritization. We propose a framework combining causal-discovery-informed covariate selection, discovery-evaluation sample splitting, inductive unsupervised clustering, uncertainty-aware subgroup selection, and held-out doubly robust policy evaluation. We compare K-means, hard, membership-weighted, and stochastic Fuzzy C-means, Bayesian Gaussian mixture models, and a supervised causal-forest-derived CATE-tree comparator. Policies are evaluated under a 70% budget for hypothetical obesity-to-non-obesity and elevated-to-lower-glucose state shifts in the PIMA Indians Diabetes dataset and for a lifetime-smoking-history contrast in NHANES. The highest estimated ungated utilities were 0.799 for the BMI policy using Bayesian GMM, 0.735 for the glucose policy using hard or membership-weighted FCM, and 0.775 for the smoking-history policy using K-means. All paired 95% confidence intervals for policy-risk differences included zero, and no comparison remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment. Bayesian pooling generally preserved ungated allocations, whereas Empirical Bernstein gating was more conservative. Policies with similar estimated utility could nevertheless prioritize different individuals. The findings should be interpreted as assumption-dependent decision-support evidence for hypothetical state contrasts rather than proof of intervention benefit.

Estimating Individualized Treatment Effects in Acute Ischemic Stroke with Causal Transformation Models (TRAM-DAG): A Multi-Centre Observational Study with External RCT Validation

Personalized medicine in acute ischemic stroke requires moving beyond average treatment effects (ATE) to individualized treatment effect (ITE) estimates to support treatment decisions. In acute ischemic stroke, mechanical thrombectomy has been shown to be more effective on average than lysis in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as the MR CLEAN study. We aim to identify which individual patients benefit most from mechanical thrombectomy compared to lysis. The outcome of interest is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at three months, an ordinal measure of functional disability (0: no symptoms, 6: death). We demonstrate that causal transformation models on directed acyclic graphs (TRAM-DAG) can be used for ITE estimation after being fitted on observational MAGIC multi-center stroke patient data. To ensure comparability with the MR CLEAN population, which we use for validation, we train the TRAM-DAG on a MAGIC sub-population with NIHSS at admission >= 6, corresponding to one inclusion criterion of MR CLEAN. The fitted model is then used to estimate ITEs for stroke patients in the MR CLEAN population. While these ITE estimates cannot be confirmed experimentally, we show that their average is consistent with the trial's reported ATE. Furthermore, the ITE estimates correctly rank trial patients by their observed frequency of a good outcome (mRS at three months <= 2). These findings support the use of causal models like TRAM-DAG for personalized decision-making in stroke care and highlight their ability to bridge the gap between observational evidence and clinical trials.

Causal Machine Learning Is Not a Panacea: A Roadmap for Observational Causal Inference in Health

Objective: The growing availability of large-scale observational clinical datasets and challenges in conducting randomized controlled trials have spurred enthusiasm in using causal machine learning (ML) for causal inference in observational data. We present a roadmap for applying causal ML to observational data. Materials and methods: We outline the importance of assessing validity assumptions within available data and applying causal ML responsibly for clinical experts using causal ML and ML practitioners with limited clinical expertise. Observations: Despite advances in causal ML, its limitations remain largely under-appreciated across disciplines. This gap in shared knowledge may impact the validity of findings. Discussion: Causal assumptions must be satisfied and modeling choices justified. Otherwise, these approaches risk producing biased or misleading results, with consequences for clinical research and patient care. Conclusion: Causal ML can be a powerful tool for generating causal hypotheses. We provide a template to strengthen the rigor and interpretability of causal analyses.