Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41790407›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Epistemic disadvantage and looping breaks: a reply to Gauld et al.

Rena Alcalay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. 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

1 author.

Rena AlcalayDepartment of Science, Technology and Society, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. rena.alcalay@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9183-9917

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While Gauld et al. correctly argue that warranted clinical exclusion of patient narratives need not constitute epistemic injustice, this paper introduces epistemic disadvantage, a coextensive but distinct category of harm. Drawing on its three conditions, I show how epistemic harm persists even when exclusions are non-prejudicial and justified, contributing to clinical ethical obligations.

Indexed as

KnowledgeHumansNarrationPhilosophy, MedicalClinical exclusionEpistemic disadvantageEpistemic injusticeNosological loopPatient narratives

Identifiers

PMID41790407
PMCPMC13086738

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.