Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41824946›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026

Causal Discovery in Observational Medical Research: Scoping Review.

Zuting Liu, Tian Luo, Hailin Ma, Jiali Mo, Xia Yang, Zhenglong Huang, Jingkun Li, Jie Kuang

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Zuting LiuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0684-6025
Tian LuoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1935-3533
Hailin MaDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5620-4681
Jiali MoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5989-0928
Xia YangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3835-3678
Zhenglong HuangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2431-4920
Jingkun Li *Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0361-3642
Jie Kuang *Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0674-7266

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational data are fundamental to medical research but present formidable challenges for causal inference. Machine learning-based causal discovery algorithms have emerged as a promising solution to identify causal structures directly from such data. However, the current literature is skewed toward theoretical and methodological innovations, with a critical gap in systematic assessments of performance in medical research settings and a lack of practical guidance for clinicians and researchers on selecting and applying these algorithms in specific medical contexts.

objectiveThis study aimed to systematically map and synthesize the application of causal discovery methods in observational medical research, detailing the methodologies used, their application domains, the robustness of the findings, and the practical challenges encountered.

methodsFollowing the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to May 2025. We included studies that applied any causal discovery algorithms within a medical research context, encompassing both analyses of real-world observational data and method-validation studies using synthetic or benchmark datasets with a clear medical focus. Purely methodological papers and studies based solely on experimental data were excluded. Data were extracted and synthesized using a descriptive analysis focused on study characteristics, algorithm types, application domains, reported numerical results, and implementation challenges.

resultsOut of 2296 identified publications, 72 (3.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Our synthesis revealed three key themes. The first theme was methodological landscape, where constraint-based algorithms were the most prevalent (38/72, 52.8%), with the fast causal inference (10/72, 13.9%) and Peter-Clark algorithms (9/72, 12.5%) being most common. Score-based (19/72, 26.4%) and hybrid (14/72, 19.4%) methods also represented significant and growing segments (methods were not mutually exclusive). The second theme was application domains and findings, where the majority of studies (54/72, 75%) were in clinical research, with a strong focus on mental health (19/72, 26.4%; eg, identifying symptom networks in schizophrenia and posttraumatic stress disorder) and chronic diseases (19/72, 26.4%; eg, elucidating progression pathways in Alzheimer and diabetes). Etiological research was the primary objective (28/72, 38.9%). Public health applications (18/72, 25%) frequently assessed the causal impacts of behavioral interventions. The third theme was implementation challenges and innovations, where common challenges included pervasive unmeasured confounding, limited sample sizes (noted in more than 20% of studies), and reliance on unvalidated causal assumptions. Emerging innovations focused on longitudinal data frameworks and the integration of multimodal data sources to strengthen causal claims.

conclusionsThis review underscores the growing application of causal discovery algorithms in medical research while also highlighting challenges such as the lack of standardized validation frameworks and persistent confounding. Future efforts must focus on developing evaluation standards and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to translate these powerful computational techniques into reliable tools for medical research and practice.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCausalityMachine LearningObservational Studies as TopicAlgorithmsHumansalgorithmcausal discoverymedical researchobservational datascoping review

Identifiers

PMID41824946
PMCPMC13032097

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.