Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37694935›Full record

ArticleThe Behavioral and brain sciences2023

A disanalogy with RCTs and its implications for second-generation causal knowledge.

Kate E Lynch, Rachael L Brown, Jeremy Strasser, Shang Long Yeo

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kate E LynchDepartment of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia kate.lynch@sydney.edu.au www.katelynch.net.ORCID 0000-0001-8800-2323
Rachael L BrownCentre for Philosophy of the Sciences, School of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia rachael.brown@anu.edu.auhttp://rachaelbrown.net.ORCID 0000-0003-2709-1945
Jeremy StrasserSchool of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia jeremy.strasser@anu.edu.au.
Shang Long YeoDepartment of Philosophy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore phiysl@nus.edu.sghttp://shang.isaphilosopher.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-0039

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are less optimistic than Madole & Harden that family-based genome-wide association studies (GWASs) will lead to significant second-generation causal knowledge. Despite bearing some similarities, family-based GWASs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not identical. Most RCTs assess a relatively homogenous causal stimulus as a treatment, whereas GWASs assess highly heterogeneous causal stimuli. Thus, GWAS results will not translate so easily into second-generation causal knowledge.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyKnowledgeCausalityHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID37694935

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.