Why Interpretable Causal Inference is Important for High-Stakes Decision
  Making for Critically Ill Patients and How To Do It
  Many fundamental problems affecting the care of critically ill patients lead
to similar analytical challenges: physicians cannot easily estimate the effects
of at-risk medical conditions or treatments because the causal effects of
medical conditions and drugs are entangled. They also cannot easily perform
studies: there are not enough high-quality data for high-dimensional
observational causal inference, and RCTs often cannot ethically be conducted.
However, mechanistic knowledge is available, including how drugs are absorbed
into the body, and the combination of this knowledge with the limited data
could potentially suffice -- if we knew how to combine them. In this work, we
present a framework for interpretable estimation of causal effects for
critically ill patients under exactly these complex conditions: interactions
between drugs and observations over time, patient data sets that are not large,
and mechanistic knowledge that can substitute for lack of data. We apply this
framework to an extremely important problem affecting critically ill patients,
namely the effect of seizures and other potentially harmful electrical events
in the brain (called epileptiform activity -- EA) on outcomes. Given the high
stakes involved and the high noise in the data, interpretability is critical
for troubleshooting such complex problems. Interpretability of our matched
groups allowed neurologists to perform chart reviews to verify the quality of
our causal analysis. For instance, our work indicates that a patient who
experiences a high level of seizure-like activity (75% high EA burden) and is
untreated for a six-hour window, has, on average, a 16.7% increased chance of
adverse outcomes such as severe brain damage, lifetime disability, or death. We
find that patients with mild but long-lasting EA (average EA burden >= 50%)
have their risk of an adverse outcome increased by 11.2%.
