A plethora of real-world scientific investigations is waiting to scale with the support of trustworthy predictive models that can reduce the need for costly data annotations. We focus on causal inferences on a target experiment with unlabeled factual outcomes, retrieved by a predictive model fine-tuned on a labeled similar experiment. First, we show that factual outcome estimation via Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) may fail to yield valid causal inferences on the target population, even in a randomized controlled experiment and infinite training samples. Then, we propose to leverage the observed experimental settings during training to empower generalization to downstream interventional investigations, ``Causal Lifting'' the predictive model. We propose Deconfounded Empirical Risk Minimization (DERM), a new simple learning procedure minimizing the risk over a fictitious target population, preventing potential confounding effects. We validate our method on both synthetic and real-world scientific data. Notably, for the first time, we zero-shot generalize causal inferences on ISTAnt dataset (without annotation) by causal lifting a predictive model on our experiment variant.

Causal inferences from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) may not pertain to a target population where some effect modifiers have a different distribution. Prior work studies generalizing the results of a trial to a target population with no outcome but covariate data available. We show how the limited size of trials makes generalization a statistically infeasible task, as it requires estimating complex nuisance functions. We develop generalization algorithms that supplement the trial data with a prediction model learned from an additional observational study (OS), without making any assumptions on the OS. We theoretically and empirically show that our methods facilitate better generalization when the OS is high-quality, and remain robust when it is not, and e.g., have unmeasured confounding.

The third ML4H symposium was held in person on December 10, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The symposium included research roundtable sessions to foster discussions between participants and senior researchers on timely and relevant topics for the \ac{ML4H} community. Encouraged by the successful virtual roundtables in the previous year, we organized eleven in-person roundtables and four virtual roundtables at ML4H 2022. The organization of the research roundtables at the conference involved 17 Senior Chairs and 19 Junior Chairs across 11 tables. Each roundtable session included invited senior chairs (with substantial experience in the field), junior chairs (responsible for facilitating the discussion), and attendees from diverse backgrounds with interest in the session's topic. Herein we detail the organization process and compile takeaways from these roundtable discussions, including recent advances, applications, and open challenges for each topic. We conclude with a summary and lessons learned across all roundtables. This document serves as a comprehensive review paper, summarizing the recent advancements in machine learning for healthcare as contributed by foremost researchers in the field.

Drawing causal inferences from observational studies (OS) requires unverifiable validity assumptions; however, one can falsify those assumptions by benchmarking the OS with experimental data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A major limitation of existing procedures is not accounting for censoring, despite the abundance of RCTs and OSes that report right-censored time-to-event outcomes. We consider two cases where censoring time (1) is independent of time-to-event and (2) depends on time-to-event the same way in OS and RCT. For the former, we adopt a censoring-doubly-robust signal for the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) to facilitate an equivalence test of CATEs in OS and RCT, which serves as a proxy for testing if the validity assumptions hold. For the latter, we show that the same test can still be used even though unbiased CATE estimation may not be possible. We verify the effectiveness of our censoring-aware tests via semi-synthetic experiments and analyze RCT and OS data from the Women's Health Initiative study.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s are relied upon to assess new treatments, but suffer from limited power to guide personalized treatment decisions. On the other hand, observational (i.e., non-experimental) studies have large and diverse populations, but are prone to various biases (e.g. residual confounding). To safely leverage the strengths of observational studies, we focus on the problem of falsification, whereby RCTs are used to validate causal effect estimates learned from observational data. In particular, we show that, given data from both an RCT and an observational study, assumptions on internal and external validity have an observable, testable implication in the form of a set of Conditional Moment Restrictions (CMRs). Further, we show that expressing these CMRs with respect to the causal effect, or "causal contrast", as opposed to individual counterfactual means, provides a more reliable falsification test. In addition to giving guarantees on the asymptotic properties of our test, we demonstrate superior power and type I error of our approach on semi-synthetic and real world datasets. Our approach is interpretable, allowing a practitioner to visualize which subgroups in the population lead to falsification of an observational study.