ArticleeLife2019
Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid.
Article in eLife, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Faculty in Cultivating Thriving Campus STEM Ecosystems.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- From Efficacy to Effectiveness: Evaluating Psychedelic Randomized Controlled Trials for Trustworthy Evidence-Based Policy and Practice.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Review
- Recommendations to promote fairness and inclusion in biomedical AI research and clinical use.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Psychedelic skepticism: back to the sixties?Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2024Article
- Beyond Kuhnian paradigms: Normal science and theory dependence in ecology.Ecology and evolution · 2023Review
- Ascribing Sentience: Evidential and Ethical Considerations in Policymaking.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Reply to Moretti et al. Would Moving Forward Mean Going Back? Comment on "Maselli et al. Direct Access to Physical Therapy: Should Italy Move Forward?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Beyond the Science: Advancing the "Art and Craft" of Implementation in the Training and Practice of Global Health.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Towards epistemic justice in nursing research in China: Time for Chinese nursing scholars to actively engage with philosophical inquiries.International journal of nursing sciences · 2021Article
- Towards Solving Health Inequities: A Method to Identify Ideological Operation in Global Health Programs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Causal Evidence and Dispositions in Medicine and Public Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- (New) Realist Social Cognition.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Review
- Viewpoints: Approaches to defining and investigating fear.Nature neuroscience · 2019Article
- Awareness of treatment: A source of bias in subjective grading of ocular complications.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.