An AI assistant to help review and improve causal reasoning in epidemiological documents

Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
{"title":"An AI assistant to help review and improve causal reasoning in epidemiological documents","authors":"Louis Anthony Cox Jr.","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing sound causal inferences from observational data is often challenging for both authors and reviewers. This paper discusses the design and application of an Artificial Intelligence Causal Research Assistant (AIA) that seeks to help authors improve causal inferences and conclusions drawn from epidemiological data in health risk assessments. The AIA-assisted review process provides structured reviews and recommendations for improving the causal reasoning, analyses and interpretations made in scientific papers based on epidemiological data. Causal analysis methodologies range from earlier Bradford-Hill considerations to current causal directed acyclic graph (DAG) and related models. AIA seeks to make these methods more accessible and useful to researchers. AIA uses an external script (a “Causal AI Booster” (CAB) program based on classical AI concepts of slot-filling in frames organized into task hierarchies to complete goals) to guide Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's LaMDA (Bard), to systematically review manuscripts and create both (a) recommendations for what to do to improve analyses and reporting; and (b) explanations and support for the recommendations. Review tables and summaries are completed systematically by the LLM in order. For example, recommendations for how to state and caveat causal conclusions in the Abstract and Discussion sections reflect previous analyses of the Study Design and Data Analysis sections. This work illustrates how current AI can contribute to reviewing and providing constructive feedback on research documents. We believe that such AI-assisted review shows promise for enhancing the quality of causal reasoning and exposition in epidemiological studies. It suggests the potential for effective human-AI collaboration in scientific authoring and review processes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000330/pdfft?md5=8c8af7a7619dbcd5390c297899c6e4d5&pid=1-s2.0-S2590113323000330-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing sound causal inferences from observational data is often challenging for both authors and reviewers. This paper discusses the design and application of an Artificial Intelligence Causal Research Assistant (AIA) that seeks to help authors improve causal inferences and conclusions drawn from epidemiological data in health risk assessments. The AIA-assisted review process provides structured reviews and recommendations for improving the causal reasoning, analyses and interpretations made in scientific papers based on epidemiological data. Causal analysis methodologies range from earlier Bradford-Hill considerations to current causal directed acyclic graph (DAG) and related models. AIA seeks to make these methods more accessible and useful to researchers. AIA uses an external script (a “Causal AI Booster” (CAB) program based on classical AI concepts of slot-filling in frames organized into task hierarchies to complete goals) to guide Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's LaMDA (Bard), to systematically review manuscripts and create both (a) recommendations for what to do to improve analyses and reporting; and (b) explanations and support for the recommendations. Review tables and summaries are completed systematically by the LLM in order. For example, recommendations for how to state and caveat causal conclusions in the Abstract and Discussion sections reflect previous analyses of the Study Design and Data Analysis sections. This work illustrates how current AI can contribute to reviewing and providing constructive feedback on research documents. We believe that such AI-assisted review shows promise for enhancing the quality of causal reasoning and exposition in epidemiological studies. It suggests the potential for effective human-AI collaboration in scientific authoring and review processes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
帮助审查和改进流行病学文件中因果推理的人工智能助手
从观察数据中得出合理的因果推论对作者和审稿人来说往往都具有挑战性。本文讨论了人工智能因果研究助手(AIA)的设计和应用,该助手旨在帮助作者改进健康风险评估中从流行病学数据中得出的因果推论和结论。人工智能因果研究助手(AIA)的辅助审查过程提供结构化审查和建议,以改进基于流行病学数据的科学论文中的因果推理、分析和解释。因果分析方法从早期的布拉德福德-希尔(Bradford-Hill)考虑到目前的因果有向无环图(DAG)和相关模型。AIA 试图让研究人员更容易使用这些方法,并使其更加有用。AIA 使用外部脚本(基于经典人工智能概念的 "因果人工智能助推器"(CAB)程序,即在按任务分层组织的框架中填槽,以完成目标)来指导大型语言模型(LLM),如 OpenAI 的 ChatGPT 或 Google 的 LaMDA (Bard),以系统地审阅手稿,并创建(a)关于如何改进分析和报告的建议;以及(b)对建议的解释和支持。审稿表和摘要由法律硕士按顺序系统完成。例如,关于如何在摘要和讨论部分陈述因果关系结论并加以说明的建议反映了之前对研究设计和数据分析部分的分析。这项工作说明了当前的人工智能如何能为审核研究文件并提供建设性反馈做出贡献。我们相信,这种人工智能辅助审阅有望提高流行病学研究中因果推理和论述的质量。它表明,在科学著作和评审过程中,人类与人工智能有可能进行有效合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Epidemiology
Global Epidemiology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
39 days
期刊最新文献
Academic performance and associated factors among female university students Exploring diseases burden in HIV population: Results from the CHAO (Comorbidities in HIV/AIDS outpatients) cross-sectional study in Kenya What constitutes valid evidence of causation? Gas stoves and childhood asthma revisited Letter to the editor regarding: “Challenging unverified assumptions in causal claims: Do gas stoves increase risk of pediatric asthma?” Identification of population multimorbidity patterns in 3.9 million patients from Bogota in 2018
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1