Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34735634›Full record

ArticleHistory and philosophy of the life sciences2021

Rethinking the history of peptic ulcer disease and its relevance for network epistemology.

Bartosz Michał Radomski, Dunja Šešelja, Kim Naumann

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bartosz Michał RadomskiInstitute for Philosophy II, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Dunja ŠešeljaPhilosophy and Ethics Group, TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. d.seselja@tue.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5679-5787
Kim NaumannMunich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Eindhoven University of Technology · NLMunich School of Philosophy · DERuhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

DFG 426833574
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The history of the research on peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is characterized by a premature abandonment of the bacterial hypothesis, which subsequently had its comeback, leading to the discovery of Helicobacter pylori-the major cause of the disease. In this paper we examine the received view on this case, according to which the primary reason for the abandonment of the bacterial hypothesis in the mid-twentieth century was a large-scale study by a prominent gastroenterologist Palmer, which suggested no bacteria could be found in the human stomach. To this end, we employ the method of digital textual analysis and study the literature on the etiology of PUD published in the decade prior to Palmer's article. Our findings suggest that the bacterial hypothesis had already been abandoned before the publication of Palmer's paper, which challenges the widely held view that his study played a crucial role in the development of this episode. In view of this result, we argue that the PUD case does not illustrate harmful effects of a high degree of information flow, as it has frequently been claimed in the literature on network epistemology. Moreover, we argue that alternative examples of harmful effects of a high degree of information flow may be hard to find in the history of science.

Indexed as

Helicobacter InfectionsHelicobacter pyloriPeptic UlcerHumansKnowledgeDigital textual analysisEddy PalmerNetwork epistemologyPeptic ulcer disease

Identifiers

PMID34735634
PMCPMC8568761
OpenAlexW3199868997

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.