Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 4PU,UK.
Prev Med. 2011 Oct;53(4-5):242-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.07.009. Epub 2011 Aug 12.
This article outlines an epistemological framework for understanding how Hill's criteria may aid us in establishing a causal hypothesis (A causes B) in an observational study.
We consider Hill's criteria in turn with respect to their ability or otherwise to exclude alternative hypotheses (B causes A; there is a common cause of A and B; there is no causal connection between A and B).
We may classify Hill's criteria according to which of the alternative hypotheses they are able to exclude, and also on the basis of whether they relate to (a) evidence from within observational study or (b) evidence independent of that study. It is noted that no criterion is able to exclude the common cause hypothesis in a systematic way.
Observational studies are typically weaker than experimental studies, since the latter can systematically exclude competing hypotheses, whereas observational studies lack a systematic way of ruling out the common cause hypothesis.
本文概述了一种认识论框架，用于理解希尔斯标准如何帮助我们在观察性研究中建立因果假设（A 导致 B）。
我们依次考虑希尔斯标准，以了解它们排除其他假设的能力（B 导致 A；A 和 B 有共同原因；A 和 B 之间没有因果关系）。
我们可以根据希尔斯标准能够排除的替代假设对其进行分类，也可以根据它们是与（a）观察性研究中的证据还是（b）独立于该研究的证据相关来进行分类。需要注意的是，没有一个标准能够系统地排除共同原因假设。
观察性研究通常比实验性研究薄弱，因为后者可以系统地排除竞争假设，而观察性研究缺乏系统地排除共同原因假设的方法。
