Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41234545›Full record

ArticleThe American statistician2025

Conceptualizing Experimental Controls Using the Potential Outcomes Framework.

Kristen B Hunter, Kristen Koenig, Marie-Abèle Bind

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American statistician, 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

3 authors.

Kristen B HunterSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5678-4620
Kristen KoenigDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-6093-2262
Marie-Abèle BindBiostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-0422-6651

Funding

Transporting established insights from classical experimental design to address causal questions in environmental epidemiology including the understanding of biological mediating mechanismsDP5OD021412 · OD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BIND, MARIE-ABELE CATHERINE · 2016 to 2020
$2.1M
NIH HHS DP5 OD021412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of a controlled experiment is to remove unwanted variation when estimating the causal effect of the intervention. Experiments conducted in the basic sciences frequently achieve this goal using experimental controls, such as "negative" and "positive" controls, which are additional experimental components designed to detect systematic sources of variation. We introduce a taxonomy of clear, mathematically-precise definitions of experimental controls using the potential outcomes framework. These definitions are intended for pedagogical purposes: they may be used by educators to ensure that their students adhere to good statistical practice, and may also be useful for communication with practitioners who are less familiar with statistical concepts. We define three types of experimental controls based on assumptions about potential outcomes: treatment, outcome, and contrast controls. After each type of control is introduced, we provide examples of its use. We also discuss experimental controls as tools for researchers to use in designing experiments and detecting potential design flaws, such as identifying unwanted variation. We believe that experimental controls are powerful yet underutilized tools for reproducible, replicable, rigorous, and transparent research.

Indexed as

Causal inferenceDesign of experimentsExperimental designNegative controlPositive control

Identifiers

PMID41234545
PMCPMC12609828

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.