Precision psychiatry needs causal inference.

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric research applies statistical methods that can be divided in two frameworks: causal inference and prediction. Recent proposals suggest a down-prioritisation of causal inference and argue that prediction paves the road to 'precision psychiatry' (i.e., individualised treatment). In this perspective, we critically appraise these proposals.

METHODS

We outline strengths and weaknesses of causal inference and prediction frameworks and describe the link between clinical decision-making and counterfactual predictions (i.e., causality). We describe three key causal structures that, if not handled correctly, may cause erroneous interpretations, and three pitfalls in prediction research.

RESULTS

Prediction and causal inference are both needed in psychiatric research and their relative importance is context-dependent. When individualised treatment decisions are needed, causal inference is necessary.

CONCLUSION

This perspective defends the importance of causal inference for precision psychiatry.