Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34556868›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2021

Causal reductionism and causal structures.

Matteo Grasso, Larissa Albantakis, Jonathan P Lang, Giulio Tononi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Structure Guides Function: Beyond Pairwise Neural Interactions.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Quantifying emergent complexity.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Intrinsic units: identifying a system's causal grain.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The Brain's Best Kept Secret Is Its Degenerate Structure.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

4 authors.

Matteo Grasso *Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Larissa Albantakis *Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1000-9917
Jonathan P LangDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8071-1344
Giulio TononiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. gtononi@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3892-4087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Causal reductionism is the widespread assumption that there is no room for additional causes once we have accounted for all elementary mechanisms within a system. Due to its intuitive appeal, causal reductionism is prevalent in neuroscience: once all neurons have been caused to fire or not to fire, it seems that causally there is nothing left to be accounted for. Here, we argue that these reductionist intuitions are based on an implicit, unexamined notion of causation that conflates causation with prediction. By means of a simple model organism, we demonstrate that causal reductionism cannot provide a complete and coherent account of 'what caused what'. To that end, we outline an explicit, operational approach to analyzing causal structures.

Indexed as

CausalityPhilosophyAnimalsAnuraForecastingNeuronsNeurosciencesSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.