Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38147198›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2023

Chance, ignorance, and the paradoxes of cancer: Richard Peto on developing preventative strategies under uncertainty.

George Davey Smith, Albert Hofman, Paul Brennan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 3 countries.

George Davey SmithMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK. pa-ieudirector@bristol.ac.uk.
Albert HofmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Paul BrennanGenomic Epidemiology Branch, IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer · FRHarvard University · USUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK CGCATF-2021/100007Medical Research Council MC_UU_00032/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the early 1980s both cancer biology and epidemiological methods were being transformed. In 1984 the leading cancer epidemiologist Richard Peto - who, in 1981, had published the landmark Causes of Cancer with Richard Doll - wrote a short chapter on "The need for ignorance in cancer research", in which the worlds of epidemiology and speculative Darwinian biology met. His reflections on how evolutionary theory related to cancer have become known as "Peto's paradox", whilst his articulation of "black box epidemiology" provided the logic of subsequent practice in the field. We reprint this sparkling and prescient example of biologically-informed epidemiological theorising at its best in this issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology, together with four commentaries that focus on different aspects of its rich content. Here were provide some contextual background to the 1984 chapter, and our own speculations regarding various paradoxes in cancer epidemiology. We suggest that one reason for the relative lack of progress in indentifying novel modifiable causes of cancer over the last 40 years may reflect such exposures being ubiquitous within environments, and discuss the lessons for epidemiology that would follow from this.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsBiological EvolutionBody SizeEpidemiologistsHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID38147198
OpenAlexW4390230944

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.