"sufficiency", and "necessity and sufficiency", which are important concepts In practical science, it is crucial to evaluate the likelihood of one event causing another event. For example, epidemiologists pay attention to determining the likelihood of a particular exposure being the cause of a particular disease.

"sufficiency", and "necessity and sufficiency", which are important concepts In practical science, it is crucial to evaluate the likelihood of one event causing another event. For example, epidemiologists pay attention to determining the likelihood of a particular exposure being the cause of a particular disease.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) - particularly generative AI - present new opportunities to accelerate, or even automate, epidemiological research. Unlike disciplines based on physical experimentation, a sizable fraction of Epidemiology relies on secondary data analysis and thus is well-suited for such augmentation. Yet, it remains unclear which specific tasks can benefit from AI interventions or where roadblocks exist. Awareness of current AI capabilities is also mixed. Here, we map the landscape of epidemiological tasks using existing datasets - from literature review to data access, analysis, writing up, and dissemination - and identify where existing AI tools offer efficiency gains. While AI can increase productivity in some areas such as coding and administrative tasks, its utility is constrained by limitations of existing AI models (e.g. hallucinations in literature reviews) and human systems (e.g. barriers to accessing datasets). Through examples of AI-generated epidemiological outputs, including fully AI-generated papers, we demonstrate that recently developed agentic systems can now design and execute epidemiological analysis, albeit to varied quality (see https://github.com/edlowther/automated-epidemiology). Epidemiologists have new opportunities to empirically test and benchmark AI systems; realising the potential of AI will require two-way engagement between epidemiologists and engineers.

Traditional echocardiographic parameters such as ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) have limitations in the early detection of cardiac dysfunction. EF often remains normal despite underlying pathology, and GLS is influenced by load conditions and vendor variability. There is a growing need for reproducible, interpretable, and operator-independent parameters that capture subtle and global cardiac functional alterations. We introduce the Acoustic Index, a novel AI-derived echocardiographic parameter designed to quantify cardiac dysfunction from standard ultrasound views. The model combines Extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition (EDMD) based on Koopman operator theory with a hybrid neural network that incorporates clinical metadata. Spatiotemporal dynamics are extracted from echocardiographic sequences to identify coherent motion patterns. These are weighted via attention mechanisms and fused with clinical data using manifold learning, resulting in a continuous score from 0 (low risk) to 1 (high risk). In a prospective cohort of 736 patients, encompassing various cardiac pathologies and normal controls, the Acoustic Index achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 in an independent test set. Cross-validation across five folds confirmed the robustness of the model, showing that both sensitivity and specificity exceeded 0.8 when evaluated on independent data. Threshold-based analysis demonstrated stable trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity, with optimal discrimination near this threshold. The Acoustic Index represents a physics-informed, interpretable AI biomarker for cardiac function. It shows promise as a scalable, vendor-independent tool for early detection, triage, and longitudinal monitoring. Future directions include external validation, longitudinal studies, and adaptation to disease-specific classifiers.

Most of the widely used estimators of the average treatment effect (ATE) in causal inference rely on the assumptions of unconfoundedness and overlap. Unconfoundedness requires that the observed covariates account for all correlations between the outcome and treatment. Overlap requires the existence of randomness in treatment decisions for all individuals. Nevertheless, many types of studies frequently violate unconfoundedness or overlap, for instance, observational studies with deterministic treatment decisions - popularly known as Regression Discontinuity designs - violate overlap. In this paper, we initiate the study of general conditions that enable the identification of the average treatment effect, extending beyond unconfoundedness and overlap. In particular, following the paradigm of statistical learning theory, we provide an interpretable condition that is sufficient and necessary for the identification of ATE. Moreover, this condition also characterizes the identification of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and can be used to characterize other treatment effects as well. To illustrate the utility of our condition, we present several well-studied scenarios where our condition is satisfied and, hence, we prove that ATE can be identified in regimes that prior works could not capture. For example, under mild assumptions on the data distributions, this holds for the models proposed by Tan (2006) and Rosenbaum (2002), and the Regression Discontinuity design model introduced by Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960). For each of these scenarios, we also show that, under natural additional assumptions, ATE can be estimated from finite samples. We believe these findings open new avenues for bridging learning-theoretic insights and causal inference methodologies, particularly in observational studies with complex treatment mechanisms.

Observational studies are a key resource for causal inference but are often affected by systematic biases. Prior work has focused mainly on detecting these biases, via sensitivity analyses and comparisons with randomized controlled trials, or mitigating them through debiasing techniques. However, there remains a lack of methodology for uncovering the underlying mechanisms driving these biases, e.g., whether due to hidden confounding or selection of participants. In this work, we show that the relationship between bias magnitude and the predictive performance of nuisance function estimators (in the observational study) can help distinguish among common sources of causal bias. We validate our methodology through extensive synthetic experiments and a real-world case study, demonstrating its effectiveness in revealing the mechanisms behind observed biases. Our framework offers a new lens for understanding and characterizing bias in observational studies, with practical implications for improving causal inference.

Additionally, experiments have shown that depersonalization symptoms can arise as a reaction to alcohol consumption (Raimo et al., 1999), and they are increasingly recognized as a significant prognostic factor in the course of depression (Michal et al., 2024). Despite these findings, little research has explored the mediating role of depersonalization symptoms in the causal pathway from alcohol consumption to depression. In this paper, we propose a methodological framework to evaluate the indirect effect of alcohol consumption on depression, with depersonalization acting as a mediator. To ground our analysis, we use data from a cross-sectional survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic by Dom ınguez-Espinosa et al. (2023) as a running example. In observational studies, the population average causal effect (ACE) and the natural indirect effect (NIE) are the most commonly used measures of total and mediation effects, respectively, to compare the outcomes of different intervention policies. For instance, in our running example, these two measures compare the depression outcomes between individuals engaging in hazardous versus non-hazardous alcohol consumption. However, clinical practice imposes ethical constraints, as healthcare professionals would not prescribe harmful levels of alcohol consumption. As a result, hypothetical interventions involving dangerous exposure levels are unrealistic. To address this situation with potentially harmful exposure, Hubbard and Van der Laan (2008) propose the population intervention effect (PIE), which contrasts outcomes between the natural population and a hypothetical population where no one is exposed to the harmful exposure level.

The prevalence of drawing causal conclusions from observational studies has raised concerns about potential exaggeration in science communication. While some believe causal language should only apply to randomized controlled trials, others argue that rigorous methods can justify causal claims in observational studies. Ideally, causal language should align with the strength of the evidence. However, through the analysis of over 80,000 observational study abstracts using computational linguistic and regression methods, we found that causal language is more frequently used by less experienced authors, smaller research teams, male last authors, and authors from countries with higher uncertainty avoidance indices. These findings suggest that the use of causal language may be influenced by external factors such as the sociocultural backgrounds of authors and the dynamics of research collaboration. This newly identified link deepens our understanding of how such factors help shape scientific conclusions in causal inference and science communication.

The joint probabilities of potential outcomes are fundamental components of causal inference in the sense that (i) if they are identifiable, then the causal risk is also identifiable, but not vise versa (Pearl, 2009; Tian and Pearl, 2000) and (ii) they enable us to evaluate the probabilistic aspects of necessity'',sufficiency'', and necessity and sufficiency'', which are important concepts of successful explanation (Watson, et al., 2020). However, because they are not identifiable without any assumptions, various assumptions have been utilized to evaluate the joint probabilities of potential outcomes, e.g., the assumption of monotonicity (Pearl, 2009; Tian and Pearl, 2000), the independence between potential outcomes (Robins and Richardson, 2011), the condition of gain equality (Li and Pearl, 2019), and the specific functional relationships between cause and effect (Pearl, 2009). Unlike existing identification conditions, in order to evaluate the joint probabilities of potential outcomes without such assumptions, this paper proposes two types of novel identification conditions using covariate information. In addition, when the joint probabilities of potential outcomes are identifiable through the proposed conditions, the estimation problem of the joint probabilities of potential outcomes reduces to that of singular models and thus they can not be evaluated by standard statistical estimation methods. To solve the problem, this paper proposes a new statistical estimation method based on the augmented Lagrangian method and shows the asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators. Given space constraints, the proofs, the details on the statistical estimation method, some numerical experiments, and the case study are provided in the supplementary material.