Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Expert-Guided g-computation with Large Language Models for Estimating Causal Effects on Timings: Applications to Hospital Quality Improvement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The effect of a not-yet-implemented operational intervention on hospital length of stay can be estimated by combining expert judgment with observed data, allowing hospitals to rank candidate QI interventions by expected time saved before…

desk verdict Clean identifiability theorem, but the deployed LLM pipeline plugs in point predictions rather than sampling, so the reported estimates are not covered by the unbiasedness claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10339 v1 pith:BHTRR5BD submitted 2026-08-11 stat.ME cs.AIstat.AP

Patrick Vossler , Jialin Ouyang , F. Richard Guo , Anran Huang , Ali Shojaie , Lucas Zier , Fan Xia , Jean Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEcs.AIstat.AP MSC 62D2068T50
keywords causalinferenceg-computationGanttchartlengthofstaylargelanguagemodelshospitalqualityimprovementcounterfactualtimingexpertelicitation
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

This paper argues that the effect of a not-yet-implemented operational intervention on hospital length of stay can be estimated by combining expert reasoning with observed data: experts specify the causal chart of a patient's events and the direct timing shifts the intervention causes, while statistical models predict downstream timings. The method, egg-computation, treats a Gantt chart as a causal DAG over waiting times and applies g-computation recursively, so the counterfactual discharge time is drawn from the same distribution as the true one under stated assumptions. The paper further shows that LLMs can scale the expert role: in eleven candidate QI interventions at a safety-net hospital, LLM-generated DAGs and time-saving estimates agreed closely with those of human experts, and in-context LLM prediction beat tabular baselines at downstream event timing. The practical payoff is a way to prioritize interventions by expected hours saved even though no patient has ever been exposed to them.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Gantt chart re-read as a causal DAG: each event is split into start/end nodes, the waiting time $W_k$ is the time from the maximum parent wall time to event $k$, and wall times satisfy $T_k = \max_{j\in\mathrm{Pa}(k)} T_j + W_k$. An exogenous intervention node $A$ attaches to its direct children $\mathrm{Ch}(A)$, and Theorem 3.1 follows from a local Markov property plus consistency and exclusion restrictions. The machinery is g-computation: in topological order, copy Type I times, draw Type II times from fitted conditional models, and draw Type III times from $p_{\text{expert}}$; the theorem shows these draws equal the counterfactual distribution.

What would settle it

Take an intervention that was later implemented, run egg-computation on pre-implementation data, and compare the predicted distribution of counterfactual LOS with the observed post-implementation LOS in an equivalent population; if the predictive interval systematically excludes the observed mean, Assumption 7 or the pooling similarity assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Assumptions 1 to 7, the paper proves that the counterfactual length of stay generated by egg-computation is identically distributed as $Y_i(1)$, so the estimator $\hat\tau$ in (3.6) is unbiased for $\tau = E[Y(0)-Y(1)]$ (Theorem 3.1). The key division of labor is node type: Type I nodes copy observed times; Type II nodes are imputed by data-driven timing models; Type III nodes, the intervention's direct children, are sampled from an expert-specified distribution $p_{\text{expert}}$. This is what lets causal claims be made without positivity—no exposed patients—provided the expert-specified DAG and expert counterfactual distributions are correct.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 7: the expert-supplied distribution of the intervention's direct target timings equals the true counterfactual waiting-time distribution, a quantity that is structurally unobserved and can never be checked against data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hospitals can rank candidate QI interventions by expected time saved per screened hospitalization before implementing any of them, using the product of the eligibility rate and the estimated average saving.
  • When patient-specific causal structure is heterogeneous, methods imposing a single population-level DAG can be badly biased; egg-computation avoids this by recovering subject-specific DAGs, with simulation biases dropping from up to about 14 hours to near zero.
  • An LLM-assisted pipeline can produce DAGs that human experts largely endorse: intervention-target specificity near 96.5%, edge precision near 92-94%, and edge recall around 80-96% across two interventions, with 19 of 24 pairs yielding identical time-saved estimates.
  • In-context LLM prediction of downstream event timings achieves lower mean absolute error (24.1 hours) than tabular baselines (best baseline 27.2 hours), especially for longer waits.
  • The framework extends beyond healthcare to any time-ordered process whose task dependencies can be drawn as Gantt charts, such as manufacturing, software development, and human-resource workflows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: if Assumption 7 holds only approximately, sensitivity analyses that vary the direct-effect distribution could bound the ranking error, but the paper does not derive such formal bounds.
  • Because the pooling step for Type II nodes relies on similarity across patients, a stronger but unstated extrapolation is at work; one could test it by calibrating predictive intervals against held-out delays.
  • A decisive testable extension would apply egg-computation to a historical intervention that was later implemented, comparing predicted counterfactual LOS with the observed post-implementation LOS in an equivalent population.
  • The framework's validity is independent of the LLM implementation: hospitals without LLM access could supply $p_{\text{expert}}$ through structured expert elicitation, and only the scalability, not the identification result, would be lost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes expert-guided g-computation (egg-computation), a causal inference framework for estimating the average time saved by hypothetical operational interventions on hospital length of stay. Each patient's trajectory is represented as a Gantt chart, formalized as a DAG over event waiting times. Under Assumptions 1-7, Theorem 3.1 shows that recursively drawing Type I node times from the factual record, Type II node times from estimated conditional waiting-time distributions, and Type III node times from an expert-supplied counterfactual distribution yields an unbiased estimator of the average treatment effect. The paper then presents an LLM-assisted pipeline to extract patient-specific DAGs and predict event timings at scale. Simulations compare egg-computation with methods that assume a single shared DAG, and a real-world study of eleven candidate interventions at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital reports concordance with human expert annotations, timing-model accuracy, and clinician-reviewed rankings.

Significance. If the ideal sampling procedure described in Theorem 3.1 were actually implemented, egg-computation would be a valuable bridge between operational Gantt-chart reasoning and formal causal inference. The paper has several genuine strengths: a clean theorem with explicit assumptions, a simulation design that isolates structural misspecification, a transparent LLM pipeline with reported costs and validation against human annotators, and a clinically relevant application where the causal and prevalence-based rankings differ. The real-world concordance results, especially the DAG annotation study and the clinician review of counterfactual Gantt charts, are useful practical contributions. The central theoretical guarantee, however, applies to a sampling procedure that the deployed pipeline does not implement. The reported estimates are produced by deterministic point predictions propagated through a nonlinear recursion, so the unbiasedness theorem does not cover the paper's headline numbers. This gap is load-bearing and needs to be addressed before the claims in the abstract and Section 3 can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Appendices D.1, D.2, and I] The implemented LLM pipeline does not execute the sampling procedure whose unbiasedness is proved in Theorem 3.1. The Type III prompt in Appendix D.1 asks for a single revised timestamp, the Type II prompt in Appendix D.2 asks for a single delay in hours, and Appendix I states that "the Type II step is deterministic, with each downstream event occurring as soon as its last parent does." No component of the pipeline draws from p_expert or from the estimated conditional waiting-time distributions. Because the recursion in Eq. (2.3) contains a maximum over sums of random waiting times, plugging point predictions into that recursion is not a draw from the counterfactual law and is generally biased for E[Y(1)|X,D]. The paper's own Table 1 is consistent with this concern: DAG-extractor with OLS-timing and kNN-timing shows nonzero bias even when the patient-specific DAG is correct. The manuscript should either implement the required sampling or reformulate the estimator as a deterministic approximation and provide a separate bias analysis for it.
  2. [Section 3.1, Assumption 7, and Appendix D.1] Assumption 7 requires the expert-specified distribution p_expert to equal the true counterfactual waiting-time distribution for every direct intervention target. The elicitation protocol in Appendix D.1, however, collects only a point timestamp; no distribution is elicited, and no sampling from such a distribution is performed. There is therefore no operational object to which Assumption 7 can attach for the reported estimates. Section 5's call for sensitivity analyses and formal inference for expert uncertainty correctly identifies this as an open issue, but the manuscript still needs to specify how p_expert would be elicited or, alternatively, to state that the deployed estimator targets a different quantity for which Assumption 7 is replaced by a point-calibration assumption.
  3. [Section 4.2.2, Tables 3-5] The leave-one-out MAE evaluation of the Type II timing models does not provide evidence for Assumption 6, which requires equality of the full conditional distribution p(W_k|T_Pa(k),X,D). MAE measures point-prediction accuracy only. A predictor can have low MAE while substantially misrepresenting the conditional distribution, and because the counterfactual recursion in Eq. (2.3) is nonlinear in the waiting times, distributional accuracy is what the unbiasedness theorem requires. The paper should add calibration or coverage diagnostics for the fitted conditional distributions, or replace Assumption 6 and Theorem 3.1 with an explicit statement about what the deterministic pipeline actually estimates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Box 3.1] The boxed algorithm is referred to as "Box" without a number; give it a stable label and reference it consistently in the proof of Theorem 3.1 and in Section 3.2.
  2. [Section 2, notation] The definition "Nd(k) := Dec(k)" appears to be a typo for the set of non-descendants; the displayed equation should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4.2.1, Table 2] The abstract and Section 4.2.1 describe the LLM time-saving estimates as "highly concordant" with experts, but for disposition-critical imaging the mean difference is 8.1 hours with a 95% CI of [0.0, 24.2], which is substantial relative to the estimated mean savings of 19.6 hours. This caveat should be stated where the concordance claim is made.
  4. [Appendix A, Remark A.3] Remark A.3 states that Theorem 3.1 requires the Type II timing models to equal the true conditional distributions and that the implementation satisfies this "to the extent this similarity assumption does." This limitation should be acknowledged in the main text in addition to the appendix.
  5. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The row "DAG-extractor + Gantt-timing" achieves zero bias by construction because it uses the true DAG and exact propagation; the text should make explicit that this row does not validate the LLM pipeline's DAG extraction or timing-model components.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the causal estimand is not forced by expert inputs; the only self-reference is a minor, non-load-bearing citation supporting Assumption 5.

full rationale

The derivation in Section 3 and Appendix A is a standard g-computation factorization. Assumptions 1-4 reduce Type II counterfactual waiting-time factors to observed conditional distributions (Lemma A.2), and Lemma A.4 assembles the recursive simulation. Type III direct effects are not derived from the data or from the estimand: Assumption 7 explicitly states that the expert-specified distribution equals the counterfactual waiting-time distribution, which is an unverifiable identification input rather than a hidden definition of tau. The estimand tau = E[Y(0)-Y(1)] is defined independently of p_expert, so Theorem 3.1 is a conditional guarantee, not a tautology. Type II timing models are fit on observed data and evaluated with leave-one-out cross-validation; the DAG concordance study compares LLM output to human-annotated graphs on a distinct set of cases from the prompt-tuning set, so the validation is not a self-fit. The paper contains self-citations (Vossler et al. 2026; Kothari et al. 2026; Guo and Zhao 2026) but they are used for background, data provenance, or plausibility of Assumption 5; none carries a step of the proof. The paper honestly flags its main caveats: Section 5 calls for sensitivity analyses and formal inference for expert uncertainty, and Remark A.3 notes that the Type II guarantee holds only to the extent the pooling-similarity assumption holds. One non-circular validity gap deserves explicit mention: Appendix I states 'The Type II step is deterministic, with each downstream event occurring as soon as its last parent does,' whereas Theorem 3.1 requires sampling from conditional waiting-time distributions. Consequently, the real-data tau-hat is not literally covered by the theorem. This is a theory-implementation gap, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score beyond the minor self-citation level.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on ten explicit assumptions or modeling choices: the standard causal assumptions, three expert-accuracy assumptions, and a pooling-similarity assumption. The three free parameters are pipeline or prompt tuning choices, not physics-style constants. No new entities such as particles, forces, or latent variables are introduced; the intervention node A is an analytical device.

free parameters (3)
  • Gantt granularity target = 24 hours
    Prompt instructs splitting causal links spanning more than 24 hours (Appendix C); chosen by authors and affects the number of DAG nodes and edges.
  • ICL exemplar count = 15
    The Type II ICL timing query uses fifteen worked examples per query (Appendix D.2); this is a tuning choice that affects downstream timing predictions.
  • Type III timing constraints = capped at observed times in estimate-agreement; shrinkage factors in sensitivity analyses
    The implementation assumes operational interventions only remove delay, not add it (Appendix I; Section 3.2.2). This bound shapes all counterfactual timings and is a modeling choice rather than a fitted value.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: Consistency
    Observed event times equal potential outcomes under A=0; required for using observed Y as E[Y(0)] in (3.6).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Exogenous intervention
    Potential waiting times are independent of A given covariates and DAG; encodes no unmeasured confounding of the intervention assignment.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: Exclusion restriction
    Non-descendants of A keep the same waiting times, and Type II nodes have identical conditional distributions under A=0 and A=1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: Local Markov property
    Waiting time at node k depends only on parent events given covariates and DAG; used to factorize (2.5).
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 5: Expert DAG specification
    The expert-posed graph has correct parents and intervention targets; the paper states this is untestable.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 6: Timing model correct
    The pooled model equals the true conditional distribution for Type II nodes; the paper notes it holds only approximately under a similarity assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 7: Expert counterfactual simulation
    The expert-specified distribution equals the counterfactual distribution for Type III nodes; this is the key unverifiable input.
  • domain assumption D(0)=d D(1) distributional equivalence
    The event-set distribution is unchanged by the intervention; plausible for operational interventions but not for treatments that change care plans (Remark 2.1).
  • domain assumption No interference or SUTVA
    Each patient's potential outcomes are unaffected by other patients; the authors note this is unrealistic when shared resources are pooled (Section 5).
  • ad hoc to paper Pooling similarity assumption for Type II models
    Patient events with similar descriptions and parent timings share timing distributions; needed to estimate Type II factors from pooled data (Remark A.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expert-Guided g-computation with Large Language Models for Estimating Causal Effects on Timings: Applications to Hospital Quality Improvement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHTRR5BD

@misc{pith2026260810339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expert-Guided g-computation with Large Language Models for Estimating Causal Effects on Timings: Applications to Hospital Quality Improvement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHTRR5BD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10339}
}
read the original abstract

Hospital quality improvement (QI) programs routinely face multiple candidate interventions to optimize hospital flow, but existing methods struggle to estimate and rank the causal effects of such interventions. This work focuses on one of the most standard hospital metrics, the average length of stay (LOS), and its causal estimand, the average time saved. To characterize this causal effect, qualitative approaches rely on expert judgment to map patient trajectories, making them susceptible to cognitive biases; quantitative approaches rely on data-driven models, which fail when interventions are hypothetical with no historical data or have complex causal mechanisms that require clinical reasoning rather than data alone. We propose expert-guided g-computation, or egg-computation, which combines the complementary strengths of both approaches by connecting the Gantt charts commonly used to map patient trajectories with the causal DAG literature. We introduce a causal model over Gantt charts and establish identification using a variant of g-computation that seeks expert input only for components unidentifiable from data. To make egg-computation practical, we develop an LLM-assisted pipeline that reliably scales up expert reasoning. In simulations, egg-computation outperforms conventional causal inference methods when patients have diverse causal structures and intervention mechanisms. In a study of eleven candidate QI interventions at an urban safety-net hospital, the LLM pipeline generated graphs and time-saving estimates highly concordant with those of human experts. Beyond healthcare, egg-computation is a broadly applicable framework for estimating the average time saved for candidate interventions whose causal mechanisms can be represented using Gantt charts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of expert-guided g-computation. To estimate the effect of a candidate Quality Improvement (QI) intervention on the average length of stay (LOS) among eligible hospitalizations, the expert, or an aligned LLM, reads unstructured texts describing the candidate intervention and patient records (left) and uses expert reasoning to extract patient-specific Gantt charts, which we prove can be endowed with probabili… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example inpatient trajectory drawn as a Gantt chart with its causal DAG. Each row is one event, placed at its event time in hours from admission, and gray arrows are the DAG edges; events are labeled k = 0, . . . , K in topological order, with K = 7. Node A is not an event: it denotes a binary intervention that directly affects the waiting times of the transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) acquisition and report (da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Five-step LLM pipeline for constructing patient DAGs. Each numbered box corresponds to each step’s LLM call and shows an example of the expected output. Given an unstructured patient chart, the LLM conducts free-form clinical reasoning (step 1), creates a Gantt chart (step 2 creates nodes, step 3 creates edges), and finally encodes the graph into a parseable format (step 4 creates nodes, step 5 creates edges). LLM o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Causal graph generation scheme for the simulation study. Each patient’s causal graph has all solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prevalence-based versus causal prioritization of the eleven candidate interventions. Eligibility rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed and counterfactual trajectories for one hospitalization (ischemic stroke and disposition-critical imaging priority). Each row is one event in the patient’s Gantt chart, placed at its event time in hours from admission, and gray arrows are the patient’s DAG edg…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LLM summary of egg-computation output of a candidate intervention provided for clinician review. For each intervention, reviewers were shown the intervention description, the eligibility rate and estimated savings, the distribution of estimated savings across eligible …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DAG-extractor + kNN-timing error as a function of the neighborhood size k, averaged over the 50 replications (bands are ±1 standard error). Left: per-patient MAE, with the dotted lines marking the lowest-MAE Single-DAG method for each intervention. Right: signed bias o…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The annotation interface, rendered on the synthetic test patient used for interface development; no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors

    Monica Agrawal, Stefan Hegselmann, Hunter Lang, Yoon Kim, and David Sontag. Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1998--2022, December 2022

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Using large language models to simulate multiple humans and replicate human subject studies

    Gati Aher, Rosa I Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans and replicate human subject studies. arXiv [cs.CL], August 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Zero-shot causal graph extrapolation from text via LLMs

    Alessandro Antonucci, Gregorio Piqu \'e , and Marco Zaffalon. Zero-shot causal graph extrapolation from text via LLMs . AAAI Workshop XAI4Sci: Explainable machine learning for sciences, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples

    Lisa P Argyle, Ethan C Busby, Nancy Fulda, Joshua R Gubler, Christopher Rytting, and David Wingate. Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Polit. Anal., 31 0 (3): 0 337--351, July 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Auerbach, Sunil Kripalani, Eduard E

    Andrew D. Auerbach, Sunil Kripalani, Eduard E. Vasilevskis, Neil Sehgal, Peter K. Lindenauer, Joshua P. Metlay, Grant Fletcher, Gregory W. Ruhnke, Scott A. Flanders, Christopher Kim, Mark V. Williams, Larissa Thomas, Vernon Giang, Shoshana J. Herzig, Kanan Patel, W. John Boscardin, Edmondo J. Robinson, and Jeffrey L. Schnipper. Preventability and causes o...

    work page arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Discrete Event System Simulation

    J Banks. Discrete Event System Simulation. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Start with the end: Early hospital discharge planning as a day-one priority

    George Bechir and Angelina Bechir. Start with the end: Early hospital discharge planning as a day-one priority. Cureus, 17 0 (6): 0 e87019, June 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gr...

    work page 1901

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical nurse specialist-led hospital to home transitional care: a systematic review: CNS -led transitional care

    Denise Bryant-Lukosius, Nancy Carter, Kim Reid, Faith Donald, Ruth Martin-Misener, Kelley Kilpatrick, Patricia Harbman, Sharon Kaasalainen, Deborah Marshall, Renee Charbonneau-Smith, and Alba DiCenso. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical nurse speciali...

    2015

  2. [10]

    What is lean healthcare

    Nejm Catalyst. What is lean healthcare. NEJM Catalyst, April 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    High agreement but low kappa: II

    D V Cicchetti and A R Feinstein. High agreement but low kappa: II . resolving the paradoxes. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 43 0 (6): 0 551--558, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias

    Carlos Cinelli and Chad Hazlett. Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 82 0 (1): 0 39--67, 2020. doi:10.1111/rssb.12348

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    The Gantt chart: A working tool of management

    W Clark, W N Polakov, and F W Trabold. The Gantt chart: A working tool of management. Ronald Press Company, 1922

    1922

  6. [14]

    Classen, Roger Resar, Frances Griffin, Frank Federico, Terri Frankel, Nancy Kimmel, John C

    David C. Classen, Roger Resar, Frances Griffin, Frank Federico, Terri Frankel, Nancy Kimmel, John C. Whittington, Allan Frankel, Andrew Seger, and Brent C. James. ` Global Trigger Tool ' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. ...

    2011

  7. [15]

    End-to-end causal effect estimation from unstructured natural language data

    Leonardo Cotta, Nikita Dhawan, Rahul Krishnan, Chris Maddison, and Karen Ullrich. End-to-end causal effect estimation from unstructured natural language data. In A Globerson, L Mackey, D Belgrave, A Fan, U Paquet, J Tomczak, and C Zhang, editors, Advances in Neural Information...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Lean in healthcare: A comprehensive review

    Antonio D'Andreamatteo, Luca Ianni, Federico Lega, and Massimo Sargiacomo. Lean in healthcare: A comprehensive review. Health Policy, 119 0 (9): 0 1197--1209, September 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Graphical models for marked point processes based on local independence: Graphical models for marked point processes

    Vanessa Didelez. Graphical models for marked point processes based on local independence: Graphical models for marked point processes. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 70 0 (1): 0 245--264, February 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    High agreement but low kappa: I

    A R Feinstein and D V Cicchetti. High agreement but low kappa: I . the problems of two paradoxes. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 43 0 (6): 0 543--549, 1990

    1990

  11. [19]

    Causal cartographer: From mapping to reasoning over counterfactual worlds

    Ga \"e l Gendron, Jo z e M Ro z anec, Michael Witbrock, and Gillian Dobbie. Causal cartographer: From mapping to reasoning over counterfactual worlds. arXiv [cs.AI], May 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Comparing hospital length of stay risk-adjustment models in US value-based physician payments

    Arnab K Ghosh, Said Ibrahim, Jennifer Lee, Martin F Shapiro, and Jessica Ancker. Comparing hospital length of stay risk-adjustment models in US value-based physician payments. Qual. Manag. Health Care, 32 0 (1): 0 22--29, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Queueing analysis in healthcare

    Linda Green. Queueing analysis in healthcare. In International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, pages 281--307. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Griffin and Roger K

    Frances A. Griffin and Roger K. Resar. IHI Global Trigger Tool for measuring adverse events. IHI innovation series white paper, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Cambridge, MA, 2009. 2nd edition

    2009

  15. [23]

    Confounder selection via iterative graph expansion

    F Richard Guo and Qingyuan Zhao. Confounder selection via iterative graph expansion. Ann. Stat., 54 0 (1): 0 516--541, February 2026

    2026

  16. [24]

    Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement

    Kilem Li Gwet. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 61 0 (Pt 1): 0 29--48, May 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data

    Andrew F Hayes and Klaus Krippendorff. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun. Methods Meas., 1 0 (1): 0 77--89, April 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    TabLLM : Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models

    Stefan Hegselmann, Alejandro Buendia, Hunter Lang, Monica Agrawal, Xiaoyi Jiang, and David Sontag. TabLLM : Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models. arXiv [cs.CL], October 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Borthne, and P l Gulbrandsen

    Petter Hurlen, Truls stbye, Arne S. Borthne, and P l Gulbrandsen. Does improved access to diagnostic imaging results reduce hospital length of stay? A retrospective study. BMC Health Services Research, 10: 0 262, 2010. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-262

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    Accuracy of a generative artificial intelligence model in a complex diagnostic challenge

    Zahir Kanjee, Byron Crowe, and Adam Rodman. Accuracy of a generative artificial intelligence model in a complex diagnostic challenge. JAMA , 330 0 (1): 0 78--80, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.8288

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sequential change-point detection in high-dimensional gaussian graphical models

    Hossein Keshavarz, George Michailidis, and Y Y Atchade. Sequential change-point detection in high-dimensional gaussian graphical models. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    When the domain expert has no time and the LLM developer has no clinical expertise: Real-world lessons from LLM co-design in a safety-net hospital

    Avni Kothari, Patrick Vossler, Jean Digitale, Mohammad Forouzannia, Elise Rosenberg, Michele Lee, Jennee Bryant, Melanie Molina, James Marks, Lucas Zier, and Jean Feng. When the domain expert has no time and the LLM developer has no clinical expertise: Real-world lessons from ...

    2026

  23. [31]

    Causal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality

    Emre Kıcıman, Robert Ness, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. Causal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality. transactions of machine learning research, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Machine-learning-based hospital discharge predictions can support multidisciplinary rounds and decrease hospital length-of-stay

    Scott Levin, Sean Barnes, Matthew Toerper, Arnaud Debraine, Anthony DeAngelo, Eric Hamrock, Jeremiah Hinson, Erik Hoyer, Trushar Dungarani, and Eric Howell. Machine-learning-based hospital discharge predictions can support multidisciplinary rounds and decrease hospital length-...

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2022

    Lan Liang, Brian Moore, and Anita Soni. National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2022. Technical report, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2026

    2022

  26. [34]

    Discovery of the hidden world with large language models

    Chenxi Liu, Yongqiang Chen, Tongliang Liu, Mingming Gong, James Cheng, Bo Han, and Kun Zhang. Discovery of the hidden world with large language models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., February 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Large language models and causal inference in collaboration: A comprehensive survey

    Xiaoyu Liu, Paiheng Xu, Junda Wu, Jiaxin Yuan, Yifan Yang, Yuhang Zhou, Fuxiao Liu, Tianrui Guan, Haoliang Wang, Tong Yu, Julian McAuley, Wei Ai, and Furong Huang. Large language models and causal inference in collaboration: A comprehensive survey. In Findings of the Associati...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Markov equivalence of marginalized local independence graphs

    S ren Wengel Mogensen and Niels Richard Hansen. Markov equivalence of marginalized local independence graphs. The Annals of Statistics, 48 0 (1): 0 539--559, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Buck, Alireza Daneshkhah, J

    Anthony O'Hagan, Caitlin E. Buck, Alireza Daneshkhah, J. Richard Eiser, Paul H. Garthwaite, David J. Jenkinson, Jeremy E. Oakley, and Tim Rakow. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2006. ISBN 978-0470029992

    2006

  30. [38]

    Causal diagrams for empirical research

    Judea Pearl. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82 0 (4): 0 669--688, 1995

    1995

  31. [39]

    Petersen, Kristin E

    Maya L. Petersen, Kristin E. Porter, Susan Gruber, Yue Wang, and Mark J. van der Laan. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 21 0 (1): 0 31--54, 2012. doi:10.1177/0962280210386207

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    A guide to the project management body of knowledge (pmbok guide)

    Project Management Institute . A guide to the project management body of knowledge (pmbok guide). Project Management Institute, 2000

    2000

  33. [41]

    Richardson and James M

    Thomas S. Richardson and James M. Robins. Single world intervention graphs ( SWIGs ): A unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality. Technical Report 128, Center for the Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington Series , 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period---application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect

    James Robins. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period---application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modelling, 7 0 (9): 0 1393--1512, January 1986

    1986

  35. [43]

    Impact and experiences of delayed discharge: A mixed-studies systematic review

    Antonio Rojas-Garc \' a, Simon Turner, Elena Pizzo, Emma Hudson, James Thomas, and Rosalind Raine. Impact and experiences of delayed discharge: A mixed-studies systematic review. Health Expect., 21 0 (1): 0 41--56, February 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate Muda

    Mike Rother and John Shook. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate Muda. Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA, 1999. ISBN 978-0966784305

    1999

  37. [45]

    Graphical criteria for the identification of marginal causal effects in continuous-time survival and event-history analyses

    Kjetil R ysland, P l C Ryalen, Mari Nyg rd, and Vanessa Didelez. Graphical criteria for the identification of marginal causal effects in continuous-time survival and event-history analyses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 87 0 (1): 0...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Randomization analysis of experimental data: The fisher randomization test comment

    Donald B Rubin. Randomization analysis of experimental data: The fisher randomization test comment. Journal of the American statistical association, 75 0 (371): 0 591--593, 1980

    1980

  39. [47]

    Fundamentals of queueing theory

    John F Shortle, James M Thompson, Donald Gross, and Carl M Harris. Fundamentals of queueing theory. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Nashville, TN, January 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    a rli, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Philip Mansfield, Dina Demner-Fushman, Blaise Ag \

    Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, Perry Payne, Martin Seneviratne, Paul Gamble, Chris Kelly, Abubakr Babiker, Nathanael Sch \"a rli, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Philip Ma...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Predictors of all-cause thirty-day readmissions in patients with heart failure at an urban safety net hospital: The importance of social determinants of health

    Alexandra B Steverson, Paul J Marano, Caren Chen, Yifei Ma, Rachel J Stern, Jean Feng, Efstathios D Gennatas, James D Marks, Matthew S Durstenfeld, Jonathan D Davis, Priscilla Y Hsue, and Lucas S Zier. Predictors of all-cause thirty-day readmissions in patients with heart fail...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Bridging the gulf of envisioning: Cognitive challenges in prompt based interactions with LLMs

    Hari Subramonyam, Roy Pea, Christopher Pondoc, Maneesh Agrawala, and Colleen Seifert. Bridging the gulf of envisioning: Cognitive challenges in prompt based interactions with LLMs . In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, volume 31, pages 1-...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Task ambiguity in humans and language models

    Alex Tamkin, Kunal Handa, Avash Shrestha, and Noah Goodman. Task ambiguity in humans and language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations ( ICLR ) , 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10711

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hospital discharge delays 'cost NHS £100m'

    The Press Association . Hospital discharge delays 'cost NHS £100m'. https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/hospital-discharge-delays-cost-nhs-100m/5068992.article, March 2014. Accessed: 2026-7-21

    2014

  45. [53]

    Principles of confounder selection

    Tyler J VanderWeele. Principles of confounder selection. Eur. J. Epidemiol., 34 0 (3): 0 211--219, March 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Applying value stream mapping to improve the delivery of patient care in the oncology day hospital

    Pilar I Vidal-Carreras, Julio J Garcia-Sabater, and Juan A Marin-Garcia. Applying value stream mapping to improve the delivery of patient care in the oncology day hospital. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19 0 (7): 0 4265, April 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    From fuzzy to formal: Scaling hospital quality improvement with AI

    Patrick Vossler, Jean Feng, Venkat Sivaraman, Robert Gallo, Hemal Kanzaria, Dana Freiser, Christopher Ross, Amy Ou, James Marks, Susan Ehrlich, Christopher Peabody, and Lucas Zier. From fuzzy to formal: Scaling hospital quality improvement with AI . arXiv [cs.AI], April 2026

    2026

  48. [56]

    Time after time: Deep- Q effect estimation for interventions on when and what to do

    Yoav Wald, Mark Goldstein, Yonathan Efroni, Wouter A C van Amsterdam, and Rajesh Ranganath. Time after time: Deep- Q effect estimation for interventions on when and what to do. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, October 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Effectiveness of discharge planning and transitional care interventions in reducing hospital readmissions for the elderly

    Maggy Wassef, Marc-Olivier Trépanier, Julie Mayrand, Martine Habra, and Sylvie Beauchamp. Effectiveness of discharge planning and transitional care interventions in reducing hospital readmissions for the elderly. Technical report, Montréal, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Invited commentary: positivity in practice

    Daniel Westreich and Stephen R Cole. Invited commentary: positivity in practice. Am. J. Epidemiol., 171 0 (6): 0 674--7; discussion 678--81, March 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Gantt charts: A centenary appreciation

    James M Wilson. Gantt charts: A centenary appreciation. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 149 0 (2): 0 430--437, September 2003

    2003

  52. [60]

    APLUS : A python library for usefulness simulations of machine learning models in healthcare

    Michael Wornow, Elsie Gyang Ross, Alison Callahan, and Nigam H Shah. APLUS : A python library for usefulness simulations of machine learning models in healthcare. J. Biomed. Inform., 139 0 (104319): 0 104319, March 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    The method of path coefficients

    Sewall Wright. The method of path coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5 0 (3): 0 161--215, 1934

    1934

  54. [62]

    Riccelli, Steven McGaughey, Jack Marshall, Kenneth DeVane, Skyler Kieran, and Beech Burns

    Obert Xu, Keith Cross, Louis P. Riccelli, Steven McGaughey, Jack Marshall, Kenneth DeVane, Skyler Kieran, and Beech Burns. Breaking the bottleneck: a quality improvement initiative to reduce overnight CT turnaround times in the emergency department. Emergency Radiology, 33 0 (...

    2026 doi

  55. [63]

    Gensheimer, Daniel L

    Jiaming Zeng, Michael F. Gensheimer, Daniel L. Rubin, Susan Athey, and Ross D. Shachter. Uncovering interpretable potential confounders in electronic medical records. Nature Communications, 13: 0 1014, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28546-8

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.