Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39466359›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

Conceptual scaffolding for the philosophy of medicine.

Yael Friedman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Synthetic Medical Data vs. The Four Principles: Ethical Trade-Offs and Zombie Data.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Sorting out and navigating uncertainty in precision medicine.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Yael FriedmanThe Centre for Philosophy and the Sciences (CPS), Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. yaelf@uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7770-9400

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, I will introduce a philosophical toolbox that I call 'conceptual scaffolding,' which helps to reflect holistically on phenomena and concepts. I situate this framework within the landscape of conceptual analysis and conceptual engineering, exemplified by the debate about the concept of disease. Within the framework of conceptual scaffolding, I develop the main idea of the paper, which is 'the binocular model of plural medicine', a holistic framework for analyzing medical concepts and phenomena. In the second part, I demonstrate the use and value of the binocular model by analyzing, through the lenses of the model, the phenomenon of health wearable devices and their effects on the concept of diagnosis.

Indexed as

Philosophy, MedicalConcept FormationHumansWearable Electronic DevicesDiagnosisDisease conceptEpistemic injusticePluralismWearables

Identifiers

PMID39466359
PMCPMC11805766

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.