ArticleJMA journal2025
Unraveling Causality: Innovations in Epidemiologic Methods.
Article in JMA journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Causal diagrams integrating counterfactuals and sufficient causes.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For several decades, the counterfactual model and the sufficient cause model have shaped our understanding of causation in biomedical science and, more recently, the link between these two models has enabled us to obtain a deeper understanding of causality. In this article, I provide a brief overview of these fundamental causal models using a simple example. The counterfactual model focuses on one particular cause or intervention and gives an account of the various effects of that cause. By contrast, the sufficient cause model considers sets of actions, events, or states of nature which together inevitably bring about the outcome under consideration. In other words, the counterfactual framework addresses the question "what if?" while the sufficient cause framework addresses the question "why does it happen?" Although these two models are distinct and address different causal questions, they are closely related and used to elucidate the same cause-effect relationships. Importantly, the sufficient cause model makes clear that causation is a multifactorial phenomenon, and it is a "finer" model than the counterfactual model; an individual is of one and only one response type in the counterfactual framework, whereas an individual may be at risk of none, one, or several sufficient causes. Understanding the link between the two causal models can provide greater insight into causality and can facilitate the use of each model in appropriate contexts, highlighting their respective strengths. I will briefly present three topics of interest from our research: the relationship between the concepts of confounding and of covariate balance; distinctions between attributable fractions and etiologic fractions; and the identification of operating mediation and mechanism. It is important to scrutinize observed associations in a complementary manner, using both the counterfactual model and the sufficient cause model, employing both inductive and deductive reasoning. This holistic approach will better help us to unravel causality.
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.