Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 242 references

Causal Transfer in Medical Image Analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Causal transfer learning frames medical domain shift as a causal problem so models keep the mechanisms that stay stable across hospitals and scanners.

desk verdict Solid survey that organises a messy literature under a CTL taxonomy; useful map, no new results, and the usual soft boundary between true causal ID and causality-inspired regularisers. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.24388 v2 pith:7LWQYYW5 submitted 2026-03-25 cs.CV

Mohammed M. Abdelsamea , Daniel Tweneboah Anyimadu , Tasneem Selim , Saif Alzubi , Lei Zhang , Ahmed Karam Eldaly , Xujiong Ye This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords CausalTransferLearningmedicalimageanalysisdomainshiftinvariantriskminimisationstructuralmodelscounterfactualreasoningadaptationclinicalgeneralisation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Medical imaging AI often collapses when moved to a new hospital, scanner, or population because it has learned fragile correlations rather than disease mechanisms. This survey argues that the right fix is Causal Transfer Learning: embed structural causal models, invariant risk minimisation, and counterfactual reasoning inside ordinary transfer pipelines so that the features that matter for diagnosis remain invariant while scanner style and site artefacts are treated as non-causal. The authors organise more than eighty studies by task, type of shift, and causal assumption, supply a unified taxonomy, and collect the datasets and reported gains that show when the causal approach beats pure distribution alignment. A sympathetic reader cares because the same machinery is claimed to improve fairness, privacy-preserving federated learning, and clinical trust without requiring source data at deployment time.

What carries the argument

Causal Transfer Learning (CTL) — the joint embedding of structural causal models, invariant risk minimisation and counterfactual reasoning inside transfer pipelines — together with the three-axis taxonomy that organises methods by causal framework, causal operation, and role in the transfer pipeline.

What would settle it

A controlled multi-hospital, multi-scanner benchmark in which a pure statistical domain-adaptation baseline matches or exceeds the cross-domain accuracy, fairness and robustness of the best CTL methods once both are given identical data and compute.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Domain shift in medical imaging is best understood as a violation of causal invariance; once structural causal models, invariant risk minimisation, and counterfactual reasoning are placed inside transfer-learning pipelines, the resulting Causal Transfer Learning recovers mechanisms that stay stable across hospitals, scanners, populations and protocols and therefore generalises more reliably than correlation-based domain adaptation.

Load-bearing premise

The surveyed methods recover genuine causal mechanisms that can be identified from ordinary observational medical images, rather than merely using causality-inspired regularisers or style-content tricks.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This survey introduces and systematises Causal Transfer Learning (CTL) for medical image analysis, framing domain shift as a causal problem and arguing that embedding structural causal models, invariant risk minimisation, and counterfactual reasoning inside transfer-learning pipelines yields invariant mechanisms that remain stable across hospitals, scanners, populations and protocols. It proposes a unified taxonomy (Figure 3) organising methods by causal framework, operation and transfer-pipeline role, reviews more than 80 studies across classification, segmentation, reconstruction, anomaly detection and multimodal tasks, summarises datasets and reported cross-domain gains, and discusses implications for fairness, federated settings and clinical trustworthiness. The central claim is organisational and synthetic rather than a new theorem or algorithm: CTL outperforms purely correlation-based domain adaptation for clinically reliable medical imaging AI.

Significance. If the organisational claim holds, the paper supplies the first comprehensive map that unifies causal inference with transfer learning specifically for medical imaging, filling a documented gap left by prior surveys that treat the two topics in isolation (Table 1). The taxonomy, task–shift–assumption tables (Tables 7–9) and curated dataset list (Table 10) give researchers a concrete reference for method selection and for identifying when causal assumptions are supported by evidence. Strengths include consistent numerical reporting of gains claimed by the original papers, explicit clinical-relevance subsections, and a clear statement of open challenges (scalability, validation, ethics, interpretability). Because the work is a literature synthesis rather than a derivation of new identification results, its lasting value lies in the taxonomy and the honest catalogue of remaining gaps rather than in any single empirical claim.

major comments (2)
  1. The manuscript repeatedly equates ‘causality-inspired’ regularisers and style–content disentanglements with recovery of identifiable causal mechanisms (abstract; §3; taxonomy of Figure 3; §6.1 CSSN Fourier style-swap; §6.3 GIN/IPA; §6.6 prototype-guided SFDA). Many of the >80 methods catalogued do not satisfy standard identification conditions from observational medical-image distributions. Because the paper never claims new identification theorems, this conflation does not invalidate the taxonomy, but it does over-state the central claim that CTL ‘identifies invariant mechanisms’. A short clarifying subsection (or revised wording throughout §3 and §6) that distinguishes true causal identification from causality-inspired regularisation is needed for the claim to remain proportionate.
  2. Section 10 and Table 11 list causal evaluation criteria (intervention testing, counterfactual reasoning, do-calculus validity, SHD, etc.), yet the empirical summaries in §6 report only conventional image-analysis metrics (Dice, AUROC, PSNR). The survey therefore never demonstrates that any of the reviewed methods actually satisfy the causal criteria it itself advocates. Either (a) extract and report any causal diagnostics present in the original papers, or (b) explicitly acknowledge that such diagnostics are almost never performed and treat this as a systematic gap. Without one of these steps the ‘when and why causal transfer outperforms’ claim remains under-supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract and §1 contain several grammatical slips (‘We studied spanning classification…’, ‘This is the generalisation problem…’) that should be corrected for readability.
  2. Figure 3 is referenced as the central taxonomy yet is never described in the main text beyond a caption; a short paragraph walking the reader through its four axes would improve accessibility.
  3. Table 1 comparison with prior surveys is useful, but the ‘Clinical Robustness’ column is binary and therefore uninformative; a brief qualitative note would strengthen the positioning claim.
  4. Equations (9)–(10) introduce IRM and the CTL objective without stating the precise environments or the form of the invariance penalty used by the surveyed medical-imaging papers; a forward pointer to the concrete realisations in §6 would help.
  5. Section 9 and Table 10 list many suitable datasets, yet several entries (e.g., IXI, fastMRI) lack explicit citation of the CTL papers that actually used them; adding those citations would close the loop.
  6. Occasional typographic inconsistencies appear (e.g., ‘Causal Treatment Learning (CTL)’ in §1 versus the rest of the paper; duplicated reference numbers for the same work). A final copy-edit pass is warranted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: survey taxonomy and literature synthesis do not derive predictions from their own inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature survey that defines Causal Transfer Learning (CTL), proposes an organisational taxonomy (Figure 3), and catalogues existing methods by task, shift type, and causal assumption. It does not fit parameters to data and then re-present those fits as predictions; it does not claim new identification theorems whose conclusions are built into the premises; and its central organisational claim is not load-bearing on self-citation uniqueness results. Reported empirical gains are attributed to the surveyed external studies (e.g., CSSN, GIN/IPA, CauSSL, GenCA-MRI), not derived by construction from the survey’s own definitions. Self-citations (e.g., Capri-CT, authors’ related work) appear only as peripheral application examples and do not close any logical loop. Renaming and grouping prior causality-inspired transfer methods under the CTL label is standard survey practice, not a circular derivation. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

A survey inherits the standard assumptions of causal inference and transfer learning; it introduces no free parameters and only one named paradigm (CTL). The load-bearing background claims are the usual causal-identification conditions and the empirical reports of the cited papers.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ignorability / no unobserved confounding given observed covariates (Eq. 1)
    Invoked throughout Sections 2–3 to justify that causal features can be recovered from medical images.
  • domain assumption Existence of invariant causal mechanisms across environments (IRM premise)
    Core of the CTL objective (Eq. 9–10) and of the taxonomy’s ‘invariance’ branch.
  • domain assumption Structural causal models correctly capture the generative process of medical images (style vs content, scanner as intervention)
    Used to interpret Fourier style transfer, GIN/IPA augmentations and GenCA-MRI as causal interventions.
  • standard math Standard do-calculus and potential-outcomes frameworks are valid for imaging interventions
    Background machinery of Pearl and Rubin cited in Section 2.
invented entities (1)
  • Causal Transfer Learning (CTL) paradigm independent evidence
    purpose: Umbrella term that unifies SCMs, IRM and counterfactual methods inside transfer-learning pipelines for medical imaging.
    The paper coins and systematises the label; independent evidence consists of the performance gains reported by the individual methods it groups under the label.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal Transfer in Medical Image Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LWQYYW5

@misc{pith2026260324388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal Transfer in Medical Image Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LWQYYW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.24388}
}
read the original abstract

Medical imaging models frequently fail when deployed across hospitals, scanners, populations, or imaging protocols due to domain shift, limiting their clinical reliability. While transfer learning and domain adaptation address such shifts statistically, they often rely on spurious correlations that break under changing conditions. On the other hand, causal inference provides a principled way to identify invariant mechanisms that remain stable across environments. This survey introduces and systematises Causal Transfer Learning (CTL) for medical image analysis. This paradigm integrates causal reasoning with cross-domain representation learning to enable robust and generalisable clinical AI. We frame domain shift as a causal problem and analyse how structural causal models, invariant risk minimisation, and counterfactual reasoning can be embedded within transfer learning pipelines. We studied spanning classification, segmentation, reconstruction, anomaly detection, and multimodal imaging, and organised them by task, shift type, and causal assumption. A unified taxonomy is proposed that connects causal frameworks and transfer mechanisms. We further summarise datasets, benchmarks, and empirical gains, highlighting when and why causal transfer outperforms correlation-based domain adaptation. Finally, we discuss how CTL supports fairness, robustness, and trustworthy deployment in multi-institutional and federated settings, and outline open challenges and research directions for clinically reliable medical imaging AI.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

242 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Litjens, T

    G. Litjens, T. Kooi, B. E. Bejnordi, A. A. A. Setio, F. Ciompi, M. Ghafoorian, J. A. van der Laak, B. van Ginneken, C. I. Sanchez, A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis, Medical image analysis 42 (2017) 60–88

    2017

  2. [2]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning, nature 521 (7553) (2015) 436–444

    2015

  3. [3]

    J. A. Cortes-Briones, N. I. Tapia-Rivas, D. C. D’Souza, P. A. Estevez, Going deep into schizophrenia with artificial intelligence, Schizophrenia Research (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Gulrajani, D

    I. Gulrajani, D. Lopez-Paz, In search of lost domain generalization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01434 (2021)

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Subbaswamy, R

    A. Subbaswamy, R. Adams, S. Saria, Evaluating model robustness and stability to dataset shift, in: International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, PMLR, 2021, pp. 2611–2619

    2021

  6. [6]

    Bernhardt, C

    M. Bernhardt, C. Jones, B. Glocker, Investigating underdiagnosis of ai algorithms in the presence of multiple sources of dataset bias, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07856 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    R. Wang, P. Chaudhari, C. Davatzikos, Harmonization with flow-based causal inference, in: M. de Bruijne, P. C. Cattin, S. Cotin, N. Padoy, S. Speidel, Y. Zheng, C. Essert (Eds.), Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 181–190

    2021

  8. [8]

    H. Ye, C. Xie, Y. Liu, Z. Li, Out-of-distribution generalization analysis via influence function, arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08521 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

Show all 242 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, N

    H. Zhang, N. Dullerud, L. Seyyed-Kalantari, Q. Morris, S. Joshi, M. Ghassemi, An empirical framework for domain generalization in clinical settings, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning (CHIL ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Valvano, A

    G. Valvano, A. Leo, S. A. Tsaftaris, Re-using adversarial mask discriminators for test-time train- ing under distribution shifts, Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging, MICCAI 2021 workshop omnibus special issue (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Vlontzos, G

    A. Vlontzos, G. Sutherland, S. Ganju, F. Soboczenski, Next-gen machine learning supported diag- nostic systems for spacecraft, in: AI for Spacecraft Longevity Workshop at IJCAI, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Prosperi, Y

    M. Prosperi, Y. Guo, M. Sperrin, J. S. Koopman, J.-S. Min, X. He, S. Rich, M. Wang, I. E. Buchan, J. Bian, Causal inference and counterfactual prediction in machine learning for actionable healthcare, Nature Machine Intelligence 2 (7) (2020) 369–375

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hirano, A

    H. Hirano, A. Minagi, K. Takemoto, Universal adversarial attacks on deep neural networks for medical image classification, BMC Medical Imaging 21 (1) (2021) 1–13. 35

    2021

  6. [14]

    Huang, K

    B. Huang, K. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Ramsey, R. Sanchez-Romero, C. Glymour, B. Schölkopf, Causal discovery from heterogeneous/nonstationary data with independent changes, Journal of Machine Learning Research 21 (89) (2020) 1–53

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kayser, R

    M. Kayser, R. D. Soberanis-Mukul, A.-M. Zvereva, P. Klare, N. Navab, S. Albarqouni, Under- standing the effects of artifacts on automated polyp detection and incorporating that knowledge via learning without forgetting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.02883 (2020)

    2002 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lavin, C

    A. Lavin, C. M. Gilligan-Lee, A. Visnjic, S. Ganju, D. Newman, S. Ganguly, D. Lange, A. G. Baydin, A. Sharma, A. Gibson, et al., Technology readiness levels for machine learning systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03989 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P. M. Gordaliza, J. J. Vaquero, A. Munoz-Barrutia, Translational lung imaging analysis through disentangled representations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01668 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Grzech, B

    D. Grzech, B. Kainz, B. Glocker, L. Le Folgoc, Image registration via stochastic gradient markov chain monte carlo, in: International Workshop on Uncertainty for Safe Utilization of Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, Springer, 2020, pp. 3–12

    2020

  11. [19]

    Y.Zhang, M.Gong, T.Liu, G.Niu, X.Tian, B.Han, B.Schölkopf, K.Zhang, Adversarialrobustness through the lens of causality, arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06196 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. G. Santa Cruz, C. Vega, F. Hertel, The need of standardised metadata to encode causal relation- ships: Towards safer data-driven machine learning biological solutions, in: Proceedings of CIBB, 2021, p. 1

    2021

  13. [21]

    S. J. Pan, Q. Yang, A survey on transfer learning, IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering 22 (10) (2010) 1345–1359

    2010

  14. [22]

    Pearl, Causality, Cambridge university press, 2009

    J. Pearl, Causality, Cambridge university press, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Schölkopf, F

    B. Schölkopf, F. Locatello, S. Bauer, N. R. Ke, N. Kalchbrenner, A. Goyal, Y. Bengio, Toward causal representation learning, Proceedings of the IEEE 109 (5) (2021) 612–634

    2021

  16. [24]

    K. Yi, C. Gan, Y. Li, P. Kohli, J. Wu, A. Torralba, J. B. Tenenbaum, Clevrer: Collision events for video representation and reasoning, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Benkarim, C

    O. Benkarim, C. Paquola, B.-Y. Park, V. Kebets, S.-J. Hong, R. V. de Wael, S. Zhang, B. T. T. Yeo, M. Eickenberg, T. Ge, et al., The cost of untracked diversity in brain-imaging prediction, bioRxiv (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    S.Budd, E.C.Robinson, B.Kainz, Asurveyonactivelearningandhuman-in-the-loopdeeplearning for medical image analysis, Medical Image Analysis 71 (2021) 102062

    2021

  19. [27]

    Schrouff, N

    J. Schrouff, N. Harris, O. Koyejo, I. Alabdulmohsin, E. Schnider, K. Opsahl-Ong, A. Brown, S. Roy, D. Mincu, C. Chen, et al., Maintaining fairness across distribution shift: Do we have viable solutions for real-world applications?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01034 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Singla, S

    S. Singla, S. Wallace, S. Triantafillou, K. Batmanghelich, Using causal analysis for conceptual deep learning explanation, in: M. de Bruijne, P. C. Cattin, S. Cotin, N. Padoy, S. Speidel, Y. Zheng, C. Essert (Eds.), Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MI...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ouyang, C

    C. Ouyang, C. Chen, S. Li, Z. Li, C. Qin, W. Bai, D. Rueckert, Causality-inspired single-source domain generalization for medical image segmentation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12525 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Li, M. Sesia, Y. Romano, E. Candès, C. Sabatti, Searching for consistent associations with a multi-environment knockoff filter, arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04118 (2021). 36

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chuang, S

    K.-C. Chuang, S. Ramakrishnapillai, L. Bazzano, O. Carmichael, Nonlinear conditional time- varying granger causality of task fmri via deep stacking networks and adaptive convolutional ker- nels, in: L. Wang, Q. Dou, P. T. Fletcher, S. Speidel, S. Li (Eds.), Medical Image Compu...

    2022

  24. [32]

    H. Ding, J. Zhang, P. Kazanzides, J. Y. Wu, M. Unberath, Carts: Causality-driven robot tool segmentation from vision and kinematics data, in: L. Wang, Q. Dou, P. T. Fletcher, S. Speidel, S. Li (Eds.), Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2022, Sp...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Adebayo, M

    J. Adebayo, M. Muelly, H. Abelson, B. Kim, Post hoc explanations may be ineffective for detecting unknown spurious correlation, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=xNOVfCCvDpM

    2022

  26. [34]

    S. Mani, G. F. Cooper, Causal discovery from medical textual data, in: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, American Medical Informatics Association, 2000, p. 542

    2000

  27. [35]

    Pölsterl, C

    S. Pölsterl, C. Wachinger, Estimation of causal effects in the presence of unobserved confounding in the alzheimer’s continuum, in: Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. 45–57

    2021

  28. [36]

    J. D. Ramsey, S. J. Hanson, C. Hanson, Y. O. Halchenko, R. A. Poldrack, C. Glymour, Six problems for causal inference from fmri, NeuroImage 49 (2) (2010) 1545–1558

    2010

  29. [37]

    N. R. Ke, S. Chiappa, J. Wang, J. Bornschein, T. Weber, A. Goyal, M. Botvinick, M. Mozer, D. J. Rezende, Learning to induce causal structure, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01774 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Clivio, F

    O. Clivio, F. Falck, B. Lehmann, G. Deligiannidis, C. Holmes, Neural score matching for high- dimensional causal inference, in: AISTATS, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Uhler, J

    C. Uhler, J. Zhang, Causal structure and representation learning with biomedical applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04790 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    G.Carloni, Human-aligneddeeplearning: Explainability, causality, andbiologicalinspiration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13717 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Mesinovic, M

    M. Mesinovic, M. Buhlan, T. Zhu, Causal graph neural networks for healthcare, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02531 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    J. Fehr, M. Piccininni, T. Kurth, S. Konigorski, A causal framework for assessing the transporta- bility of clinical prediction models, medRxiv (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    L. Fay, H. Reguigui, B. Yang, S. Gatidis, T. Küstner, Mimm-x: Disentangling spurious correlations for medical image analysis, in: MICCAI Workshop on Fairness of AI in Medical Imaging, Springer, 2025, pp. 94–103

    2025

  36. [44]

    Rojas-Carulla, B

    M. Rojas-Carulla, B. Schölkopf, R. Turner, J. Peters, Invariant models for causal transfer learning, Journal of Machine Learning Research 19 (36) (2018) 1–34

    2018

  37. [45]

    Zapaishchykova, D

    A. Zapaishchykova, D. Dreizin, Z. Li, J. Y. Wu, S. Faghihroohi, M. Unberath, An interpretable approach to automated severity scoring in pelvic trauma, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Springer, 2021, pp. 424–433

    2021

  38. [46]

    Hussain, F

    M. Hussain, F. A. Satti, J. Hussain, T. Ali, S. I. Ali, H. S. M. Bilal, G. H. Park, S. Lee, T. Chung, A practical approach towards causality mining in clinical text using active transfer learning, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 123 (2021) 103932

    2021

  39. [47]

    C. Liu, X. Sun, J. Wang, H. Tang, T. Li, T. Qin, W. Chen, T.-Y. Liu, Learning causal semantic representation for out-of-distribution prediction, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 34, 2021. 37

    2021

  40. [48]

    Fawkes, R

    J. Fawkes, R. Evans, D. Sejdinovic, Selection, ignorability and challenges with causal fairness, in: Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 275–289

    2022

  41. [49]

    D. B. Rubin, Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization, The Annals of Statistics 6 (1) (1978) 34–58

    1978

  42. [50]

    Vlontzos, D

    A. Vlontzos, D. Rueckert, B. Kainz, A review of causality for learning algorithms in medical image analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05498 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. G. Neuberg, Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, by judea pearl, cambridge university press, 2000, Econometric Theory 19 (4) (2003) 675–685

    2000

  44. [52]

    F. Boge, A. Mosig, Causality and scientific explanation of artificial intelligence systems in biomedicine, Pflügers Archiv-European Journal of Physiology 477 (4) (2025) 543–554

    2025

  45. [53]

    P. C. Austin, An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies, Multivariate behavioral research 46 (3) (2011) 399–424

    2011

  46. [54]

    A. J. Sedgewick, K. Buschur, I. Shi, J. D. Ramsey, V. K. Raghu, D. V. Manatakis, Y. Zhang, J. Bon, D. Chandra, C. Karoleski, et al., Mixed graphical models for integrative causal analysis with application to chronic lung disease diagnosis and prognosis, Bioinformatics 35 (7) (...

    2019

  47. [55]

    L. Yao, Z. Chu, S. Li, Y. Li, J. Gao, A. Zhang, A survey on causal inference, ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 15 (5) (2021) 1–46

    2021

  48. [56]

    Ghosh, E

    D. Ghosh, E. Mastej, R. Jain, Y. S. Choi, Causal inference in radiomics: Framework, mechanisms, and algorithms, Frontiers in Neuroscience 16 (2022) 884708

    2022

  49. [57]

    J. G. Richens, C. M. Lee, S. Johri, Improving the accuracy of medical diagnosis with causal machine learning, Nature communications 11 (1) (2020) 3923

    2020

  50. [58]

    Nauta, D

    M. Nauta, D. Bucur, C. Seifert, Causal discovery with attention-based convolutional neural net- works, Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 1 (1) (2019) 312–340

    2019

  51. [59]

    Gerstenberg, N

    T. Gerstenberg, N. D. Goodman, D. A. Lagnado, J. B. Tenenbaum, A counterfactual simulation model of causal judgments for physical events, Psychological Review 128 (5) (2021) 936

    2021

  52. [60]

    Sanchez, J

    P. Sanchez, J. P. Voisey, T. Xia, H. I. Watson, A. Q. O’Neil, S. A. Tsaftaris, Causal machine learning for healthcare and precision medicine, Royal Society Open Science 9 (8) (2022) 220638

    2022

  53. [61]

    D. B. Rubin, Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies., Journal of educational Psychology 66 (5) (1974) 688

    1974

  54. [62]

    G. W. Imbens, D. B. Rubin, Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences, Cam- bridge university press, 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    P. R. Rosenbaum, D. B. Rubin, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika 70 (1) (1983) 41–55

    1983

  56. [64]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, D. B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd Edition, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2013

    2013

  57. [65]

    D. P. Kingma, M. Welling, Auto-encoding variational bayes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press, 2000

    J. Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  59. [67]

    D. B. Rubin, Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions, Journal of the American statistical Association 100 (469) (2005) 322–331

    2005

  60. [68]

    Ibeling, T

    D. Ibeling, T. Icard, Comparing causal frameworks: Potential outcomes, structural models, graphs, and abstractions, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023) 80130–80141. 38

    2023

  61. [69]

    X. Wu, S. Peng, J. Li, J. Zhang, Q. Sun, W. Li, Q. Qian, Y. Liu, Y. Guo, Causal inference in the medical domain: A survey, Applied Intelligence 54 (6) (2024) 4911–4934

    2024

  62. [70]

    D. C. Castro, I. Walker, B. Glocker, Causality matters in medical imaging, Nature Communications 11 (1) (2020) 3673

    2020

  63. [71]

    Petersen, E

    E. Petersen, E. Ferrante, M. Ganz, A. Feragen, Are demographically invariant models and repre- sentations in medical imaging fair?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01397 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Papangelou, K

    K. Papangelou, K. Sechidis, J. Weatherall, G. Brown, Toward an understanding of adversarial examples in clinical trials, in: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer, 2018, pp. 35–51

    2018

  65. [73]

    Huang, T

    Y. Huang, T. Würfl, K. Breininger, L. Liu, G. Lauritsch, A. Maier, Abstract: Some investigations on robustness of deep learning in limited angle tomography, in: MICCAI, Springer, 2019, pp. 21–21

    2019

  66. [74]

    A. J. DeGrave, J. D. Janizek, S.-I. Lee, Ai for radiographic covid-19 detection selects shortcuts over signal, Nature Machine Intelligence (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    B. G. S. Cruz, A. Husch, F. Hertel, The effect of dataset confounding on predictions of deep neural networks for medical imaging, arXiv preprint (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Noroozi, A. Hwang, A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05709 (2020)

    2002 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al., Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion, in: International conference on machine learning, PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  70. [78]

    X. Zhai, B. Mustafa, A. Kolesnikov, L. Beyer, Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 11975–11986

    2023

  71. [79]

    Beyer, Y

    M.Tschannen, A.Gritsenko, X.Wang, M.F.Naeem, I.Alabdulmohsin, N.Parthasarathy, T.Evans, L. Beyer, Y. Xia, B. Mustafa, et al., Siglip 2: Multilingual vision-language encoders with improved semantic understanding, localization, and dense features, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14786 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Zhang, F

    H. Zhang, F. Li, S. Liu, L. Zhang, H. Su, J. Zhu, L. M. Ni, H.-Y. Shum, Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03605 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Y. Yang, H. Li, Y. Chen, Stable and causal inference for discriminative self-supervised deep visual representations, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 16109–16120

    2023

  74. [82]

    W. M. Kouw, S. N. Ørting, J. Petersen, K. S. Pedersen, M. de Bruijne, A cross-center smoothness prior for variational bayesian brain tissue segmentation, in: Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Springer, 2019, pp. 360–371

    2019

  75. [83]

    Gretton, K

    A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, A. Smola, A kernel two-sample test, The journal of machine learning research 13 (1) (2012) 723–773

    2012

  76. [84]

    X. Pei, K. Zuo, Y. Li, Z. Pang, A review of the application of multi-modal deep learning in medicine: bibliometrics and future directions, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 16 (1) (2023) 44

    2023

  77. [85]

    Xu, Deep learning in multimodal medical image analysis, in: International conference on health information science, Springer, 2019, pp

    Y. Xu, Deep learning in multimodal medical image analysis, in: International conference on health information science, Springer, 2019, pp. 193–200

    2019

  78. [86]

    Krones, U

    F. Krones, U. Marikkar, G. Parsons, A. Szmul, A. Mahdi, Review of multimodal machine learning approaches in healthcare, Information Fusion 114 (2025) 102690

    2025

  79. [87]

    Ngiam, A

    J. Ngiam, A. Khosla, A. Y. Kim, J. Nam, H. Lee, Multimodal deep learning, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Omnipress, 2011, pp. 689–696. 39

    2011

  80. [88]

    Liang, L

    X. Liang, L. Zhou, N. Li, M. Xu, Z. Song, D. Yi, J. Wu, H. Liu, J. Luo, Z. Lei, Multimodal causal-driven representation learning for generalizable medical image segmentation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05008 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Holzinger, B

    A. Holzinger, B. Malle, A. Saranti, B. Pfeifer, Towards multi-modal causability with graph neural networks enabling information fusion for explainable ai, Information Fusion 71 (2021) 28–37

    2021

  82. [90]

    Y. Li, H. Li, S. K. Zhou, Causal pets: Causality-informed pet synthesis from multi-modal data, in: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 2025

    2025

  83. [91]

    Golovanevsky, C

    M. Golovanevsky, C. Eickhoff, R. Singh, Multimodal attention-based deep learning for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 29 (12) (2022) 2014– 2022

    2022

  84. [92]

    Teshima, I

    T. Teshima, I. Sato, M. Sugiyama, Few-shot domain adaptation by causal mechanism transfer, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2020, pp. 9458–9469

    2020

  85. [93]

    W. M. Kouw, M. Loog, A review of domain adaptation without target labels, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 43 (3) (2019) 766–785

    2019

  86. [95]

    A.Balke, J.Pearl, Probabilisticevaluationofcounterfactualqueries, in: ProceedingsoftheNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 1994

    1994

  87. [96]

    Reynaud, A

    H. Reynaud, A. Vlontzos, M. Dombrowski, C.-H. Lee, A. Beqiri, P. Leeson, B. Kainz, D’artagnan: Counterfactual video generation, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interven- tion (MICCAI), 2022

    2022

  88. [97]

    Vlontzos, B

    A. Vlontzos, B. Kainz, C. M. Gilligan-Lee, Estimating the probabilities of causation via deep monotonic twin networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01904 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  89. [98]

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, Generative adversarial nets, Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  90. [99]

    R.Sanchez-Romero, J.Ramsey, K.Zhang, M.R.Glymour, B.Huang, C.Glymour, Causaldiscovery of feedback networks with functional magnetic resonance imaging, Network Neuroscience (2018)

    2018

  91. [100]

    R. Jiao, N. Lin, Z. Hu, D. A. Bennett, L. Jin, M. Xiong, Bivariate causal discovery and its applications to gene expression and imaging data analysis, Frontiers in Genetics 9 (2018) 347. doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00347. URLhttps://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2018.00347

    2018 doi

  92. [101]

    D. M. Chickering, Optimal structure identification with greedy search, Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2003) 507–554

    2003

  93. [102]

    M. J. Vowels, N. C. Camgoz, R. Bowden, D’ya like dags? a survey on structure learning and causal discovery, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) (2021)

    2021

  94. [103]

    Sanchez-Romero, J

    R. Sanchez-Romero, J. D. Ramsey, K. Zhang, C. Glymour, Identification of effective connectivity subregions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03264 (2019)

    1908 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Zheng, B

    X. Zheng, B. Aragam, P. K. Ravikumar, E. P. Xing, Dags with no tears: Continuous optimization for structure learning, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  96. [105]

    Y. Li, A. Torralba, A. Anandkumar, D. Fox, A. Garg, Causal discovery in physical systems from videos, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33, 2020, pp. 9180–9192

    2020

  97. [106]

    S. Löwe, D. Madras, R. Zemel, M. Welling, Amortized causal discovery: Learning to infer causal graphs from time-series data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00655 (2022). 40

    2022 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Hoyer, D

    P. Hoyer, D. Janzing, J. M. Mooij, J. Peters, B. Schölkopf, Nonlinear causal discovery with additive noise models, Advances in neural information processing systems 21 (2008)

    2008

  99. [108]

    Peters, J

    J. Peters, J. M. Mooij, D. Janzing, B. Schölkopf, Causal discovery with continuous additive noise models, The Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (1) (2014) 2009–2053

    2014

  100. [109]

    Shimizu, P

    S. Shimizu, P. O. Hoyer, A. Hyvärinen, A. Kerminen, M. Jordan, A linear non-gaussian acyclic model for causal discovery., Journal of Machine Learning Research 7 (10) (2006)

    2006

  101. [110]

    I. Ng, A. Ghassami, K. Zhang, On the role of sparsity and dag constraints for learning linear dags, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020) 17943–17954

    2020

  102. [111]

    D. P. Kingma, M. Welling, An introduction to variational autoencoders, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02691 (2019)

    1906 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Doersch, Tutorial on variational autoencoders, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 (2016)

    C. Doersch, Tutorial on variational autoencoders, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  104. [113]

    R.Xia, Z.Pan, F.Xu, Instanceweightingfordomainadaptationviatradingoffsampleselectionbias and variance, in: Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden, 2018, pp. 13–19

    2018

  105. [114]

    H. Guan, M. Liu, Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 69 (3) (2021) 1173–1185

    2021

  106. [115]

    Heckerman, A tutorial on learning with bayesian networks, Learning in graphical models (1998) 301–354

    D. Heckerman, A tutorial on learning with bayesian networks, Learning in graphical models (1998) 301–354

    1998

  107. [116]

    Borboudakis, I

    G. Borboudakis, I. Tsamardinos, Scoring and searching over bayesian networks with causal and associative priors, arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.2057 (2014)

    arXiv

  108. [117]

    A. C. Constantinou, Z. Guo, N. K. Kitson, The impact of prior knowledge on causal structure learning, Knowledge and Information Systems 65 (8) (2023) 3385–3434

    2023

  109. [118]

    P. W. Battaglia, J. B. Hamrick, V. Bapst, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, V. Zambaldi, M. Malinowski, A. Tacchetti, D. Raposo, A. Santoro, R. Faulkner, et al., Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01261 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Y. Zhu, L. Zhang, C. Sainsbury, F. Dong, J. MacLay, D. J. Lowe, X. Ye, Counterfactual medical images generation for lung disease diagnosis using probabilistic causal models and active learning, IEEE Access (2025)

    2025

  111. [120]

    Zhang, Z.-A

    Y. Zhang, Z.-A. Huang, Z. Hong, S. Wu, J. Wu, K. C. Tan, Mixed prototype correction for causal inference in medical image classification, in: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2024, pp. 4377–4386

    2024

  112. [121]

    Rajpurkar, J

    P. Rajpurkar, J. Irvin, K. Zhu, B. Yang, H. Mehta, T. Duan, D. Ding, A. Bagul, C. Langlotz, K. Shpanskaya, et al., Chexnet: Radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05225 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  113. [122]

    Rasal, A

    R. Rasal, A. Kori, B. Glocker, Causal representation learning with observational grouping for cxr classification, in: MICCAI Workshop on Fairness of AI in Medical Imaging, Springer, 2025, pp. 145–155

    2025

  114. [123]

    Ouyang, C

    C. Ouyang, C. Chen, S. Li, Z. Li, C. Qin, W. Bai, D. Rueckert, Causality-inspired single-source domain generalization for medical image segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42 (4) (2022) 1095–1106

    2022

  115. [124]

    B. Chen, Y. Zhu, Y. Ao, S. Caprara, R. Sutter, G. Rätsch, E. Konukoglu, A. Susmelj, Generalizable single-source cross-modality medical image segmentation via invariant causal mechanisms, in: 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), IEEE, 2025,...

    2025

  116. [125]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, A. Becker, U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image seg- mentation, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2015

    2015

  117. [126]

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Dollár, R. Girshick, Mask r-cnn, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017

    2017

  118. [127]

    Lambin, E

    P. Lambin, E. Rios-Velazquez, R. Leijenaar, S. Carvalho, R. G. Van Stiphout, P. Granton, C. M. Zegers, R. Gillies, R. Boellard, A. Dekker, et al., Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis, European journal of cancer 48 (4) (201...

    2012

  119. [128]

    I. U. Haq, M. Mhamed, M. Al-Harbi, H. Osman, Z. Y. Hamd, Z. Liu, Advancements in medical radiology through multimodal machine learning: A comprehensive overview, Bioengineering 12 (5) (2025) 477

    2025

  120. [129]

    J. Wang, S. Zhao, W. Qiang, J. Li, C. Zheng, F. Sun, H. Xiong, Towards the causal complete cause of multi-modal representation learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14058 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  121. [130]

    Y. Sun, L. Kong, G. Chen, L. Li, G. Luo, Z. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Zheng, M. Yang, P. Stojanov, et al., Causal representation learning from multi-modal biomedical observations, ArXiv (2025) arXiv– 2411

    2025

  122. [131]

    Nguyen, G

    M. Nguyen, G. H. Ngo, M. R. Sabuncu, et al., Glacial: Granger and learning-based causality analysis for longitudinal imaging studies, Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging 2 (November 2024 issue) (2024) 2223–2257

    2024

  123. [132]

    S.Wei, H.Zhang, R.Moore, R.Kamaleswaran, Y.Xie, Transferlearningforcausaleffectestimation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09126 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  124. [133]

    Kocaoglu, C

    M. Kocaoglu, C. Snyder, A. G. Dimakis, S. Vishwanath, Causalgan: Learning causal implicit generative models with adversarial training, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.02023 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  125. [134]

    S. An, K. Song, J.-J. Jeon, Causally disentangled generative variational autoencoder, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11737 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Poinsot, A

    A. Poinsot, A. Leite, N. Chesneau, M. Sebag, M. Schoenauer, Learning structural causal models through deep generative models: Methods, guarantees, and challenges, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05025 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  127. [136]

    Eichelberg, K

    M. Eichelberg, K. Kleber, M. Kämmerer, Cybersecurity challenges for pacs and medical imaging, Academic Radiology 27 (8) (2020) 1126–1139

    2020

  128. [137]

    E. Tjoa, C. Guan, A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Toward medical xai, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 32 (11) (2020) 4793–4813

    2020

  129. [138]

    Rawal, A

    A. Rawal, A. Raglin, D. B. Rawat, B. M. Sadler, J. McCoy, Causality for trustworthy artificial intelligence: status, challenges and perspectives, ACM Computing Surveys 57 (6) (2025) 1–30

    2025

  130. [139]

    J. Mu, M. Kadoch, T. Yuan, W. Lv, Q. Liu, B. Li, Explainable federated medical image analysis through causal learning and blockchain, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 28 (6) (2024) 3206–3218

    2024

  131. [140]

    L. Jiao, Y. Wang, X. Liu, L. Li, F. Liu, W. Ma, Y. Guo, P. Chen, S. Yang, B. Hou, Causal inference meets deep learning: A comprehensive survey, Research 7 (2024) 0467

    2024

  132. [141]

    Z. Zeng, W. Peng, D. Zeng, Improving the stability of intrusion detection with causal deep learning, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 19 (4) (2022) 4750–4763

    2022

  133. [142]

    Q. Tian, K. Kuang, K. Jiang, F. Liu, Z. Wang, F. Wu, Confoundergan: Protecting image data privacy with causal confounder, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022) 32789–32800. 42

    2022

  134. [143]

    A. V. Malarkkan, H. Bai, X. Wang, A. Kaushik, D. Wang, Y. Fu, Rethinking spatio-temporal anomaly detection: A vision for causality-driven cybersecurity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08177 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  135. [144]

    S. Alzu, F. Stahl, M. Al-Khafajiy, Detect, decide, explain: An intelligent framework for zero-day network attack detection, in: International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2025, pp. 3–17

    2025

  136. [145]

    Pissanetzky, On the future of information: Reunification, computability, adaptation, cybersecu- rity, semantics, IEEE access 4 (2016) 1117–1140

    S. Pissanetzky, On the future of information: Reunification, computability, adaptation, cybersecu- rity, semantics, IEEE access 4 (2016) 1117–1140

    2016

  137. [146]

    Baniasadi, M

    M. Baniasadi, M. V. Petersen, J. Goncalves, A. Horn, V. Vlasov, F. Hertel, A. Husch, Dbseg- ment: Fast and robust segmentation of deep brain structures–evaluation of transportability across acquisition domains, Human Brain Mapping (2022)

    2022

  138. [147]

    Subbaswamy, S

    A. Subbaswamy, S. Saria, Counterfactual normalization: Proactively addressing dataset shift using causal mechanisms., in: UAI, 2018, pp. 947–957

    2018

  139. [148]

    S. E. Monsell, Statistical methods for exploring causal relationships between risk factors and liver disease (2023)

    2023

  140. [149]

    S. G. Gnanakalavathy, H. A. Razak, R. Meertens, J. E. Fieldsend, X. Ye, M. M. Abdelsamea, Capri-ct: Causal analysis and predictive reasoning for image quality optimization in computed tomography, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17420 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  141. [150]

    J. R. Zech, M. A. Badgeley, M. Liu, A. B. Costa, J. J. Titano, E. K. Oermann, Variable gen- eralization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: a cross-sectional study, PLoS medicine 15 (11) (2018) e1002683

    2018

  142. [151]

    J. W. Gichoya, I. Banerjee, A. R. Bhimireddy, J. L. Burns, L. A. Celi, L.-C. Chen, R. Correa, N. Dullerud, M. Ghassemi, S.-C. Huang, et al., Ai recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study, The Lancet Digital Health 4 (6) (2022) e406–e414

    2022

  143. [152]

    Zhuang, N

    J. Zhuang, N. C. Dvornek, S. C. Tatikonda, X. Papademetris, P. Ventola, J. S. Duncan, Multi- pleshooting adjoint method for whole-brain dynamic causal modeling, in: A. Feragen, S. Sommer, J. Schnabel, M. Nielsen (Eds.), Information Processing in Medical Imaging (IPMI), Springe...

    2021

  144. [153]

    Vlontzos, H

    A. Vlontzos, H. Reynaud, B. Kainz, Is more data all you need? a causal exploration, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02409 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  145. [154]

    Maintz, M

    J. Maintz, M. A. Viergever, A survey of medical image registration, Medical Image Analysis 2 (1) (1998) 1–36

    1998

  146. [155]

    Holzinger, M

    A. Holzinger, M. Dehmer, F. Emmert-Streib, R. Cucchiara, I. Augenstein, J. Del Ser, W. Samek, I. Jurisica, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, Information fusion as an integrative cross-cutting enabler to achieve robust, explainable, and trustworthy medical artificial intelligence, Information...

    2022

  147. [156]

    Kocaoglu, C

    M. Kocaoglu, C. Snyder, A. G. Dimakis, S. Vishwanath, Causalgan: Learning causal implicit gen- erative models with adversarial training, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  148. [157]

    Garcea, L

    F. Garcea, L. Morra, F. Lamberti, On the use of causal models to build better datasets, in: 2021 IEEE 45th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), IEEE, 2021, pp. 1514–1519

    2021

  149. [158]

    Haskins, U

    G. Haskins, U. Kruger, P. Yan, Deep learning in medical image registration: a survey, Machine Vision and Applications 31 (1) (2020) 8

    2020

  150. [159]

    R. J. Chen, T. Y. Chen, J. Lipkova, J. J. Wang, D. F. Williamson, M. Y. Lu, S. Sahai, F. Mahmood, Algorithm fairness in ai for medicine and healthcare, arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00603 (2021). 43

    2021 arXiv

  151. [160]

    Mueller, A

    S. Mueller, A. Li, J. Pearl, Causes of effects: Learning individual responses from population data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12171 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  152. [161]

    Ouyang, C

    C. Ouyang, C. Biffi, C. Chen, T. Kart, H. Qiu, D. Rueckert, Self-supervised learning for few-shot medical image segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41 (7) (2022) 1837–1848

    2022

  153. [162]

    Jones, D

    C. Jones, D. C. Castro, F. D. S. Ribeiro, O. Oktay, M. McCradden, B. Glocker, No fair lunch: a causal perspective on dataset bias in machine learning for medical imaging, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16526 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  154. [163]

    Jones, D

    C. Jones, D. C. Castro, F. De Sousa Ribeiro, O. Oktay, M. McCradden, B. Glocker, A causal perspective on dataset bias in machine learning for medical imaging, Nature Machine Intelligence 6 (2) (2024) 138–146

    2024

  155. [164]

    Vigneshwaran, E

    V. Vigneshwaran, E. Ohara, M. Wilms, N. Forkert, Macaw: a causal generative model for medical imaging, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02900 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  156. [165]

    Ibrahim, H

    Y. Ibrahim, H. Warr, K. Kamnitsas, Semi-supervised learning for deep causal generative models, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer, 2024, pp. 294–303

    2024

  157. [166]

    Y. Li, X. Cui, Y. Cao, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, L. Cui, Z. Liu, S. Li, Causclip: Causality-adapting visual scoring of visual language models for few-shot learning in portable echocardiography quality assessment, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-As...

    2024

  158. [167]

    J. I. Orlando, H. Fu, J. B. Breda, K. Van Keer, D. R. Bathula, A. Diaz-Pinto, R. Fang, P.-A. Heng, J. Kim, J. Lee, et al., Refuge challenge: A unified framework for evaluating automated methods for glaucoma assessment from fundus photographs, Medical image analysis 59 (2020) 101570

    2020

  159. [168]

    Sivaswamy, S

    J. Sivaswamy, S. Krishnadas, A. Chakravarty, G. Joshi, A. S. Tabish, et al., A comprehensive retinal image dataset for the assessment of glaucoma from the optic nerve head analysis, JSM Biomedical Imaging Data Papers 2 (1) (2015) 1004

    2015

  160. [169]

    Fumero, S

    F. Fumero, S. Alayón, J. L. Sanchez, J. Sigut, M. Gonzalez-Hernandez, Rim-one: An open retinal image database for optic nerve evaluation, in: 2011 24th international symposium on computer- based medical systems (CBMS), IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–6

    2011

  161. [170]

    Pawlowski, D

    N. Pawlowski, D. C. Castro, B. Glocker, Deep structural causal models for tractable counterfactual inference, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33, 2020

    2020

  162. [171]

    Glymour, K

    C. Glymour, K. Zhang, P. Spirtes, Review of causal discovery methods based on graphical models, Frontiers in genetics 10 (2019) 524

    2019

  163. [172]

    H. Fang, B. Han, S. Zhang, S. Zhou, C. Hu, W.-M. Ye, Data augmentation for object detection via controllable diffusion models, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 2024, pp. 1257–1266

    2024

  164. [173]

    J. Miao, C. Chen, F. Liu, H. Wei, P.-A. Heng, Caussl: Causality-inspired semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 21426–21437

    2023

  165. [174]

    Bernard, A

    O. Bernard, A. Lalande, C. Zotti, F. Cervenansky, X. Yang, P.-A. Heng, I. Cetin, K. Lekadir, O. Ca- mara, M. A. G. Ballester, et al., Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?, IEEE transactions on me...

    2018

  166. [175]

    Clark, B

    K. Clark, B. Vendt, K. Smith, J. Freymann, J. Kirby, P. Koppel, S. Moore, S. Phillips, D. Maf- fitt, M. Pringle, et al., The cancer imaging archive (tcia): maintaining and operating a public information repository, Journal of digital imaging 26 (6) (2013) 1045–1057. 44

    2013

  167. [176]

    H. R. Roth, A. Farag, E. Turkbey, L. Lu, J. Liu, R. M. Summers, Data from pancreas-ct. the cancer imaging archive, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 5 (2016)

    2016

  168. [177]

    H. R. Roth, L. Lu, A. Farag, H.-C. Shin, J. Liu, E. B. Turkbey, R. M. Summers, Deeporgan: Multi-level deep convolutional networks for automated pancreas segmentation, in: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, 2015, pp...

    2015

  169. [178]

    Bakas, H

    S. Bakas, H. Akbari, A. Sotiras, M. Bilello, M. Rozycki, J. S. Kirby, J. B. Freymann, K. Farahani, C. Davatzikos, Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma mri collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features, Scientific data 4 (1) (2017) 1–13

    2017

  170. [179]

    Bakas, M

    S. Bakas, M. Reyes, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, M. Rempfler, A. Crimi, R. T. Shinohara, C. Berger, S. M. Ha, M. Rozycki, et al., Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the brats challeng...

    2018 arXiv

  171. [180]

    U. Baid, S. Ghodasara, S. Mohan, M. Bilello, E. Calabrese, E. Colak, K. Farahani, J. Kalpathy- Cramer, F. C. Kitamura, S. Pati, et al., The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classification, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  172. [181]

    B. H. Menze, A. Jakab, S. Bauer, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, K. Farahani, J. Kirby, Y. Burren, N. Porz, J. Slotboom, R. Wiest, et al., The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats), IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34 (10) (2014) 1993–2024

    2014

  173. [182]

    Carloni, E

    G. Carloni, E. Pachetti, S. Colantonio, Causality-driven one-shot learning for prostate cancer grad- ing from mri, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 2616–2624

    2023

  174. [183]

    A. Saha, J. Bosma, J. Twilt, B. van Ginneken, D. Yakar, M. Elschot, J. Veltman, J. Fütterer, M. de Rooij, et al., Artificial intelligence and radiologists at prostate cancer detection in mri—the pi-cai challenge, in: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, short paper track, 2023

    2023

  175. [184]

    S. Targ, D. Almeida, K. Lyman, Resnet in resnet: Generalizing residual architectures, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08029 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  176. [185]

    Qiu, Causality-inspired source-free domain adaptation for medical image classification, in: In- ternational Conference on Image and Graphics, Springer, 2023, pp

    S. Qiu, Causality-inspired source-free domain adaptation for medical image classification, in: In- ternational Conference on Image and Graphics, Springer, 2023, pp. 68–80

    2023

  177. [186]

    Candemir, S

    S. Candemir, S. Jaeger, K. Palaniappan, J. P. Musco, R. K. Singh, Z. Xue, A. Karargyris, S. Antani, G. Thoma, C. J. McDonald, Lung segmentation in chest radiographs using anatomical atlases with nonrigid registration, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 33 (2) (2013) 577–590

    2013

  178. [187]

    S.Jaeger, A.Karargyris, S.Candemir, L.Folio, J.Siegelman, F.Callaghan, Z.Xue, K.Palaniappan, R. K. Singh, S. Antani, et al., Automatic tuberculosis screening using chest radiographs, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 33 (2) (2013) 233–245

    2013

  179. [188]

    Roschewitz, F

    M. Roschewitz, F. D. S. Ribeiro, T. Xia, G. Khara, B. Glocker, Robust image representations with counterfactual contrastive learning, Medical Image Analysis (2025) 103668

    2025

  180. [189]

    Bustos, A

    A. Bustos, A. Pertusa, J.-M. Salinas, M. De La Iglesia-Vaya, Padchest: A large chest x-ray image dataset with multi-label annotated reports, Medical image analysis 66 (2020) 101797

    2020

  181. [190]

    J. J. Jeong, B. L. Vey, A. Bhimireddy, T. Kim, T. Santos, R. Correa, R. Dutt, M. Mosunjac, G. Oprea-Ilies, G. Smith, et al., The emory breast imaging dataset (embed): A racially diverse, granular dataset of 3.4 million screening and diagnostic mammographic images, Radiology: A...

    2023

  182. [191]

    Roschewitz, F

    M. Roschewitz, F. D. S. Ribeiro, T. Xia, G. Khara, B. Glocker, Robust image representations with counterfactual contrastive learning (2024), URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2409.10365. 45

    2024 arXiv

  183. [192]

    Y. Wang, T. Zeng, F. Liu, Q. Dou, P. Cao, H.-C. Chang, Q. Deng, E. S. Hui, Illuminating the unseen: Advancing mri domain generalization through causality, Medical Image Analysis 101 (2025) 103459

    2025

  184. [193]

    Knoll, J

    F. Knoll, J. Zbontar, A. Sriram, M. J. Muckley, M. Bruno, A. Defazio, M. Parente, K. J. Geras, J. Katsnelson, H. Chandarana, et al., fastmri: A publicly available raw k-space and dicom dataset of knee images for accelerated mr image reconstruction using machine learning, Radio...

    2020

  185. [194]

    Arjovsky, L

    M. Arjovsky, L. Bottou, I. Gulrajani, D. Lopez-Paz, Invariant risk minimization (2020).arXiv: 1907.02893. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1907.02893

    2020 arXiv

  186. [195]

    Ahuja, D

    K. Ahuja, D. Mahajan, Y. Wang, Y. Bengio, Interventional causal representation learning, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2023, pp. 372–407

    2023

  187. [196]

    M. Yang, F. Liu, Z. Chen, X. Shen, J. Hao, J. Wang, Causalvae: Disentangled representation learning via neural structural causal models, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 9593–9602

    2021

  188. [197]

    Suter, D

    R. Suter, D. Miladinovic, B. Schölkopf, S. Bauer, Robustly disentangled causal mechanisms: Vali- dating deep representations for interventional robustness, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2019, pp. 6056–6065

    2019

  189. [198]

    F. Lv, J. Liang, S. Li, B. Zang, C. H. Liu, Z. Wang, D. Liu, Causality inspired representation learning for domain generalization, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 8046–8056

    2022

  190. [199]

    M. Long, Z. Cao, J. Wang, M. I. Jordan, Conditional adversarial domain adaptation, Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  191. [200]

    Zhang, B

    K. Zhang, B. Schölkopf, K. Muandet, Z. Wang, Domain adaptation under target and conditional shift, in: International conference on machine learning, Pmlr, 2013, pp. 819–827

    2013

  192. [201]

    M. Gong, K. Zhang, T. Liu, D. Tao, C. Glymour, B. Schölkopf, Domain adaptation with conditional transferable components, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2016, pp. 2839– 2848

    2016

  193. [202]

    I.Guyon, C.Aliferis, etal., Causalfeatureselection, in: Computationalmethodsoffeatureselection, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2007, pp. 79–102

    2007

  194. [203]

    M. Ilse, J. M. Tomczak, P. Forré, Selecting data augmentation for simulating interventions, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 4555–4562

    2021

  195. [204]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. Cai, Separating style and content for generalized style transfer, in: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 8447–8455

    2018

  196. [205]

    Chang, G

    C.-H. Chang, G. A. Adam, A. Goldenberg, Towards robust classification model by counterfactual and invariant data generation, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 15212–15221

    2021

  197. [206]

    Janzing, Causal regularization, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    D. Janzing, Causal regularization, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  198. [207]

    M. T. Bahadori, K. Chalupka, E. Choi, R. Chen, W. F. Stewart, J. Sun, Causal regularization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02604 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  199. [208]

    Y. Wang, X. Li, Z. Qi, J. Li, X. Li, X. Meng, L. Meng, Meta-causal feature learning for out- of-distribution generalization, in: European Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 2022, pp. 530–545

    2022

  200. [209]

    J.-F. Ton, D. Sejdinovic, K. Fukumizu, Meta learning for causal direction, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 35, 2021, pp. 9897–9905. 46

    2021

  201. [210]

    Gardner, R

    M. Gardner, R. T. Shinohara, R. A. Bethlehem, R. Romero-Garcia, V. Warrier, L. Dorfschmidt, L. B. C. Consortium, S. Shanmugan, P. Thompson, J. Seidlitz, et al., Combatls: A location-and scale-preserving method for multi-site image harmonization, Human Brain Mapping 46 (8) (202...

    2025

  202. [211]

    Arjas, J

    E. Arjas, J. Parner, Causal reasoning from longitudinal data, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 31 (2) (2004) 171–187

    2004

  203. [212]

    Arkhangelsky, G

    D. Arkhangelsky, G. Imbens, Causal models for longitudinal and panel data: A survey, The Econo- metrics Journal 27 (3) (2024) C1–C61

    2024

  204. [213]

    Y. Wu, E. Y. Chang, B. L. Tseng, Multimodal metadata fusion using causal strength, in: Proceed- ings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2005, pp. 872–881

    2005

  205. [214]

    Y. Wu, D. Wang, J. Zhou, H. Bao, Multimodal data-driven image restoration from a causal perspec- tive: a fusion framework of deep residual prior and uncertainty perception, Journal of Electronic Imaging 34 (5) (2025) 053002–053002

    2025

  206. [215]

    X. Xiao, B. Shen, X. Yue, Causality-informed anomaly detection in partially observable sensor networks: Moving beyond correlations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09742 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  207. [216]

    R. Ayde, T. Senft, N. Salameh, M. Sarracanie, Deep learning for fast low-field mri acquisitions, Scientific reports 12 (1) (2022) 11394

    2022

  208. [217]

    Arshad, M

    M. Arshad, M. Qureshi, O. Inam, H. Omer, Transfer learning in deep neural network based under- sampled mr image reconstruction, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 76 (2021) 96–107

    2021

  209. [218]

    S. U. H. Dar, M. Özbey, A. B. Çatlı, T. Çukur, A transfer-learning approach for accelerated mri using deep neural networks, Magnetic resonance in medicine 84 (2) (2020) 663–685

    2020

  210. [219]

    J. Lv, G. Li, X. Tong, W. Chen, J. Huang, C. Wang, G. Yang, Transfer learning enhanced generative adversarial networks for multi-channel mri reconstruction, Computers in biology and medicine 134 (2021) 104504

    2021

  211. [220]

    W. Bi, J. Xv, M. Song, X. Hao, D. Gao, F. Qi, Linear fine-tuning: a linear transformation based transfer strategy for deep mri reconstruction, Frontiers in Neuroscience 17 (2023) 1202143

    2023

  212. [221]

    Landman, Z

    B. Landman, Z. Xu, J. Igelsias, M. Styner, T. Langerak, A. Klein, Miccai multi-atlas labeling beyond the cranial vault–workshop and challenge, in: Proc. MICCAI multi-atlas labeling beyond cranial vault—workshop challenge, Vol. 5, Munich, Germany, 2015, p. 12

    2015

  213. [222]

    Y. Ji, H. Bai, C. Ge, J. Yang, Y. Zhu, R. Zhang, Z. Li, L. Zhanng, W. Ma, X. Wan, et al., Amos: A large-scale abdominal multi-organ benchmark for versatile medical image segmentation, Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022) 36722–36732

    2022

  214. [223]

    A. E. Kavur, N. S. Gezer, M. Barış, S. Aslan, P.-H. Conze, V. Groza, D. D. Pham, S. Chatterjee, P.Ernst, S.Özkan, etal., Chaoschallenge-combined(ct-mr)healthyabdominalorgansegmentation, Medical image analysis 69 (2021) 101950

    2021

  215. [224]

    Sekuboyina, M

    A. Sekuboyina, M. Rempfler, A. Valentinitsch, B. H. Menze, J. S. Kirschke, Labeling vertebrae with two-dimensional reformations of multidetector ct images: an adversarial approach for incorporating prior knowledge of spine anatomy, Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2) (202...

    2020

  216. [225]

    S. Pang, C. Pang, L. Zhao, Y. Chen, Z. Su, Y. Zhou, M. Huang, W. Yang, H. Lu, Q. Feng, Spineparsenet: spine parsing for volumetric mr image by a two-stage segmentation framework with semantic image representation, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40 (1) (2020) 262–273

    2020

  217. [226]

    Klinwichit, W

    P. Klinwichit, W. Yookwan, S. Limchareon, K. Chinnasarn, J.-S. Jang, A. Onuean, Buu-lspine: A thai open lumbar spine dataset for spondylolisthesis detection, Applied Sciences 13 (15) (2023) 8646. 47

    2023

  218. [227]

    J. Yang, G. Sharp, H. Veeraraghavan, W. Van Elmpt, A. Dekker, T. Lustberg, M. Gooding, Data from lung ct segmentation challenge, The cancer imaging archive (2017)

    2017

  219. [228]

    V. V. Danilov, D. Litmanovich, A. Proutski, A. Kirpich, D. Nefaridze, A. Karpovsky, Y. Gankin, Automatic scoring of covid-19 severity in x-ray imaging based on a novel deep learning workflow, Scientific reports 12 (1) (2022) 12791

    2022

  220. [229]

    Zhuang, J

    X. Zhuang, J. Xu, X. Luo, C. Chen, C. Ouyang, D. Rueckert, V. M. Campello, K. Lekadir, S. Vesal, N. RaviKumar, et al., Cardiac segmentation on late gadolinium enhancement mri: a benchmark study from multi-sequence cardiac mr segmentation challenge, Medical Image Analysis 81 (2...

    2022

  221. [230]

    Q. Liu, Q. Dou, P.-A. Heng, Shape-aware meta-learning for generalizing prostate mri segmentation to unseen domains, in: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, 2020, pp. 475–485

    2020

  222. [231]

    Bloch, A

    N. Bloch, A. Madabhushi, H. Huisman, J. Freymann, J. Kirby, M. Grauer, A. Enquobahrie, C. Jaffe, L. Clarke, K. Farahani, Nci-isbi 2013 challenge: automated segmentation of prostate structures, The Cancer Imaging Archive 370 (6) (2015) 5

    2013

  223. [232]

    Lemaître, R

    G. Lemaître, R. Martí, J. Freixenet, J. C. Vilanova, P. M. Walker, F. Meriaudeau, Computer-aided detection and diagnosis for prostate cancer based on mono and multi-parametric mri: a review, Computers in biology and medicine 60 (2015) 8–31

    2015

  224. [233]

    Litjens, R

    G. Litjens, R. Toth, W. Van De Ven, C. Hoeks, S. Kerkstra, B. Van Ginneken, G. Vincent, G. Guil- lard, N. Birbeck, J. Zhang, et al., Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for mri: the promise12 challenge, Medical image analysis 18 (2) (2014) 359–373

    2014

  225. [234]

    Jaeger, S

    S. Jaeger, S. Candemir, S. Antani, Y.-X. J. Wáng, P.-X. Lu, G. Thoma, Two public chest x-ray datasets for computer-aided screening of pulmonary diseases, Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery 4 (6) (2014) 475

    2014

  226. [235]

    Stein, C

    A. Stein, C. Wu, C. Carr, G. Shih, J. Dulkowski, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, et al., Rsna pneumonia detection challenge, Mountain View: Kaggle (2018)

    2018

  227. [236]

    G. Shih, C. C. Wu, S. S. Halabi, M. D. Kohli, L. M. Prevedello, T. S. Cook, A. Sharma, J. K. Amorosa, V. Arteaga, M. Galperin-Aizenberg, et al., Augmenting the national institutes of health chest radiograph dataset with expert annotations of possible pneumonia, Radiology: Arti...

    2019

  228. [237]

    Irvin, P

    J. Irvin, P. Rajpurkar, M. Ko, Y. Yu, S. Ciurea-Ilcus, C. Chute, H. Marklund, B. Haghgoo, R. Ball, K. Shpanskaya, et al., Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence...

    2019

  229. [238]

    H. T. Nguyen, H. Q. Nguyen, H. H. Pham, K. Lam, L. T. Le, M. Dao, V. Vu, Vindr-mammo: A large-scale benchmark dataset for computer-aided diagnosis in full-field digital mammography, Scientific Data 10 (1) (2023) 277

    2023

  230. [239]

    Peters, D

    J. Peters, D. Janzing, B. Schölkopf, Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms, MIT Press, 2017

    2017

  231. [240]

    Spirtes, C

    P. Spirtes, C. Glymour, R. Scheines, Causation, Prediction, and Search, 2nd Edition, MIT Press, 2000

    2000

  232. [241]

    J. L. Hill, Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 20 (1) (2011) 217–240

    2011

  233. [242]

    Kalisch, P

    M. Kalisch, P. Bühlmann, Causal inference using graphical models with the r package pcalg, Journal of Statistical Software 47 (11) (2012) 1–26. 48 Table 8: Applications of Causal Transfer Learning across Medical Imaging Modalities Modality Task CTL Method Benefit Fundus Imagin...

    2012

  234. [243]

    and Mammography (EMBED) [190] Classification under domain shift Counterfactual Contrastive Learning (CCL) Improved robustness to acquisition shifts, re- duced bias, and better generalisation, especially for under-represented scanners with limited la- bels MRI (fastMRI) [193], ...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.