Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34546476›Full record

ArticleHistory and philosophy of the life sciences2021

Descriptive understanding and prediction in COVID-19 modelling.

Johannes Findl, Javier Suárez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in History and philosophy of the life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Johannes FindlLOGOS/BIAP, Department of Philosophy, Facultat de Filosofia, Univerity of Barcelona, C/ Montalegre 6-8, Room 4049, 08001, Barcelona, Spain.
Javier SuárezDepartment of Philosophy of the Natural Sciences, Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University of Krakow, Grodka 52, Room 42, 33-332, Krakow, Poland. javier.suarez@uj.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5851-2277

Funding

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad BES-2017-081621Narodowe Centrum Nauki OPUS Grant No: 2019/35/B/HS1/01998
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 has substantially affected our lives during 2020. Since its beginning, several epidemiological models have been developed to investigate the specific dynamics of the disease. Early COVID-19 epidemiological models were purely statistical, based on a curve-fitting approach, and did not include causal knowledge about the disease. Yet, these models had predictive capacity; thus they were used to ground important political decisions, in virtue of the understanding of the dynamics of the pandemic that they offered. This raises a philosophical question about how purely statistical models can yield understanding, and if so, what the relationship between prediction and understanding in these models is. Drawing on the model that was developed by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, we argue that early epidemiological models yielded a modality of understanding that we call descriptive understanding, which contrasts with the so-called explanatory understanding which is assumed to be the main form of scientific understanding. We spell out the exact details of how descriptive understanding works, and efficiently yields understanding of the phenomena. Finally, we vindicate the necessity of studying other modalities of understanding that go beyond the conventionally assumed explanatory understanding.

Indexed as

ComprehensionModels, StatisticalCOVID-19HumansSARS-CoV-2DescriptionEpidemiological modellingSARS-CoV-2Scientific explanationStatistical modelling

Identifiers

PMID34546476
PMCPMC8453036

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.