Abstract:Perhaps no other topic in risk analysis is more difficult, more controversial, or more important to risk management policy analysts and decision-makers than how to draw valid, correctly qualified causal conclusions from observational data. Statistical methods can readily quantify associations between observed variables using measures such as relative risk (RR) ratios, odds ratios (OR), slope coefficients for exposure or treatment variables in regression models, and quantities derived from these measures. Textbooks of epidemiology explain how to calculate population attributable fractions, attributable risks, burden-of-disease estimates, and probabilities of causation from relative risk (RR) ratios. Despite their suggestive names, these association-based measures have no necessary connection to causation if the associations on which they are based arise from bias, confounding, p-hacking, coincident historical trends, or other noncausal sources. But policy analysts and decision makers need something more: trustworthy predictions - and, later, evaluations - of the changes in outcomes caused by changes in policy variables. This concept of manipulative causation differs from the more familiar concepts of associational and attributive causation most widely used in epidemiology. Drawing on modern literature on causal discovery and inference principles and algorithms for drawing limited but useful causal conclusions from observational data, we propose seven criteria for assessing consistency of data with a manipulative causal exposure-response relationship - mutual information, directed dependence, internal and external consistency, coherent causal explanation of biological plausibility, causal mediation confirmation, and refutation of non-causal explanations - and discuss to what extent it is now possible to automate discovery of manipulative causal dependencies and quantification of causal effects from observational data. We compare our proposed principles for causal discovery and inference to the traditional Bradford Hill considerations from 1965. Understanding how old and new principles are related can clarify and enrich both.

Observational Research Rigour Alone Does Not Justify Causal Inference

Distinguishing Between Mediators and Confounders is Important for the Causal Inference in Observational Studies

Causal inference and observational data

For Objective Causal Inference, Design Trumps Analysis

Causal inference with observational data in addiction research

Causal Inference Struggles with Agency on Online Platforms

A Survey on Causal Inference

Modernizing the Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causal relationships in observational data

Objective causal predictions from observational data

Observational Causality Testing

A Causal Framework for Observational Studies of Discrimination

Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them

Learning sources of variability from high-dimensional observational studies

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation

Causal inference: critical developments, past and future

[May Cross-Sectional Studies Provide Causal Inferences?]

Through the lens of causal inference: Decisions and pitfalls of covariate selection

A Comparative Study of Design-Based and Analysis-Based Approaches to Causal Inference with Observational Data

Statistical causal inference methods for observational research in PER: a primer

Assessing the Unobserved: Enhancing Causal Inference in Sociology with Sensitivity Analysis

Designing observational studies for credible causal inference in addiction research—Directed acyclic graphs, modified disjunctive cause criterion and target trial emulation