ArticleHeliyon2020
New considerations on the validity of the Wiener-Granger causality test.
Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional connectivity networks for transportation delay analysis: From theory to software.Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives · 2026Article
- Structurally informed models of directed brain connectivity.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
- Incidence of giant cell arteritis is associated with COVID-19 prevalence: A population-level retrospective study.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The arrow-of-time in neuroimaging time series identifies causal triggers of brain function.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- Statistical Perspective on Functional and Causal Neural Connectomics: A Comparative Study.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Wiener-Granger causality test is used to predict future experimental results from past observations in a purely mathematical way. For instance, in many scientific papers this test has been used to study the causality relations in the case of neuronal activities. Albeit some papers reported repeatedly about problems or open questions related to the application of the Granger causality test on biological systems, these criticisms were always related to some kind of assumptions to be made before the test's application. In our paper instead we investigate the Granger method itself, making use exclusively of fundamental mathematical tools like Fourier transformation and differential calculus. We find that the ARMA method reconstructs any time series from any time series, regardless of their properties, and that the quality of the reconstruction is given by the properties of the Fourier transform. In literature several definitions of "causality" have been proposed in order to maintain the idea that the Granger test might be able to predict future events and prove causality between time series. We find instead that not even the most fundamental requirement underlying any possible definition of causality is met by the Granger causality test. No matter of the details, any definition of causality should refer to the prediction of the future from the past; instead by inverting the time series we find that Granger also allows one to "predict" the past from the future.
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.