Unraveling Causality: Innovations in Epidemiologic Methods.

IF 1.5 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
JMA journal Pub Date : 2025-04-28 Epub Date: 2025-04-21 DOI:10.31662/jmaj.2024-0246
Etsuji Suzuki
{"title":"Unraveling Causality: Innovations in Epidemiologic Methods.","authors":"Etsuji Suzuki","doi":"10.31662/jmaj.2024-0246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73550,"journal":{"name":"JMA journal","volume":"8 2","pages":"323-337"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12095854/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMA journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2024-0246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

揭示因果关系:流行病学方法的创新。
几十年来,反事实模型和充分原因模型塑造了我们对生物医学科学因果关系的理解,最近,这两个模型之间的联系使我们能够更深入地了解因果关系。在本文中,我将使用一个简单的示例简要概述这些基本因果模型。反事实模型侧重于一个特定的原因或干预,并给出了该原因的各种影响的说明。相比之下,充分原因模型考虑的是一系列不可避免地导致所考虑的结果的行为、事件或自然状态。换句话说,反事实框架解决的问题是“如果?”而充分原因框架解决的问题是“为什么会发生?”虽然这两个模型是不同的,解决不同的因果问题,但它们密切相关,并用于阐明相同的因果关系。重要的是,充分原因模型清楚地表明,因果关系是一个多因素现象,它是一个比反事实模型“更精细”的模型;在反事实框架中,个体有且只有一种反应类型,而个体可能没有、一个或几个充分原因。了解两个因果模型之间的联系可以提供对因果关系的更深入的了解,并且可以促进在适当的上下文中使用每个模型,突出其各自的优势。我将简要介绍我们研究中感兴趣的三个主题:混淆和协变量平衡概念之间的关系;归因分与病因分的区别以及运行中介和机制的识别。使用反事实模型和充分原因模型,采用归纳和演绎推理,以互补的方式仔细检查观察到的关联是很重要的。这种整体的方法将更好地帮助我们解开因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信