Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40658050›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Causal Approaches to Disease Progression Analyses.

Bronner P Gonçalves, Etsuji Suzuki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Bronner P GonçalvesFrom the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom, and.
Etsuji SuzukiDepartment of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiologic analyses that aim to quantify exposure effects on disease progression are not uncommon. Understanding the implications of these studies, however, is complicated, in part because different causal estimands could, at least in theory, be the target of such analyses. Here, to facilitate interpretation of these studies, we describe different settings in which causal questions related to disease progression can be asked, and consider possible estimands. For clarity, our discussion is structured around settings defined based on two factors: whether the disease occurrence is manipulable or not, and the type of outcome. We describe relevant causal structures and sets of response types, which consist of joint potential outcomes of disease occurrence and disease progression, and argue that settings where interventions to manipulate disease occurrence are not plausible are more common, and that, in this case, principal stratification might be an appropriate framework to conceptualize the analysis. Further, we suggest that the precise definition of the outcome of interest, in particular of what constitutes its permissible levels, might determine whether potential outcomes linked to disease progression are definable in different strata of the population. Our hope is that this paper will encourage additional methodological work on causal analysis of disease progression, as well as serve as a resource for future applied studies.

Indexed as

CausalityDisease ProgressionEpidemiologic MethodsHumansCausal inferenceControlled direct effectsDisease progressionPotential outcomesPrincipal stratification

Identifiers

PMID40658050
PMCPMC13166065

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.