Koterov A N, Ushenkova L N
Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Biol Bull Russ Acad Sci. 2022;49(12):2423-2466. doi: 10.1134/S1062359022120068. Epub 2023 Feb 22.
Part 1 of Report 4 is focused on the development and modifications of causal criteria after A.B. Hill (1965). Criteria from B. MacMahon et al. (1970-1996), regarded as the first textbook for modern epidemiology, were considered, and it was found that the named researchers did not offer anything new despite the frequent mention of this source in relation to the theme. A similar situation emerged with the criteria of M. Susser: the three obligatory points of this author, "Association" (or "Probability" of causality), "Time order," and "Direction of effect," are trivial, and two more special criteria, which are the development of "Popperian Epidemiology," i.e., "Surviability" of the hypothesis when it is tested by different methods (included in the refinement in Hill's criterion "Consistency of association") and "Predictive performance" of the hypothesis are more theoretical and hardly applicable for the practice of epidemiology and public health. The same restrictions apply to the similar "Popperian" criteria of D.L. Weed, "Predictability" and "Testability" of the causal hypothesis. Although the universal postulates of A.S. Evans for infectious and noninfectious pathologies can be considered exhaustive, they are not used either in epidemiology or in any other discipline practice, except for the field of infectious pathologies, which is probably explained by the complication of the ten-point complex. The little-known criteria of P. Cole (1997) for medical and forensic practice are the most important. The three parts of Hill's criterion-based approaches are important in that they go from a single epidemiological study through a cycle of studies (coupled with the integration of data from other biomedical disciplines) to re-base Hill's criteria for assessing the individual causality of an effect. These constructs complement the earlier guidance from R.E. Gots (1986) on establishing probabilistic personal causation. The collection of causal criteria and the guidelines for environmental disciplines (ecology of biota, human ecoepidemiology, and human ecotoxicology) were considered. The total dominance of inductive causal criteria, both initial and in modifications and with additions, was revealed for an apparently complete base of sources (1979-2020). Adaptations of all known causal schemes based on guidelines have been found, from Henle-Koch postulates to Hill and Susser, including in the international programs and practice of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Hill Criteria are used by the WHO and other organizations on chemical safety (IPCS) to assess causality in animal experiments for subsequent extrapolation to humans. Data on the assessment of the causality of effects in ecology, ecoepidemiology, and ecotoxicology, together with the use of Hill's criteria for animal experiments, are of significant relevance not only for radiation ecology, but also for radiobiology.
报告4的第1部分聚焦于A.B.希尔(1965年)之后因果标准的发展与修正。我们考量了B.麦克马洪等人(1970 - 1996年)提出的标准,其著作被视为现代流行病学的第一本教科书,但发现尽管该文献在主题方面常被提及,这些知名研究者并未提出任何新内容。M.苏瑟的标准也出现了类似情况:该作者提出的三个必备要点,即“关联”(或因果关系的“概率”)、“时间顺序”和“效应方向”,都很平常,另外两个特殊标准,即“波普尔式流行病学”的发展成果,也就是假设在通过不同方法检验时的“可存续性”(包含在希尔标准的“关联一致性”细化中)以及假设的“预测性能”,更多是理论性的,几乎不适用于流行病学和公共卫生实践。同样的限制也适用于D.L.威德类似的“波普尔式”标准,即因果假设的“可预测性”和“可检验性”。尽管A.S.埃文斯针对传染性和非传染性疾病提出的通用假设可被视为详尽无遗,但除了传染病领域外,它们在流行病学或任何其他学科实践中都未被采用,这可能是由于十点综合标准过于复杂。P.科尔(1997年)提出的鲜为人知的医学和法医学实践标准最为重要。基于希尔标准的方法的三个部分很重要,因为它们从单一的流行病学研究出发,经过一系列研究循环(结合其他生物医学学科的数据整合),重新构建希尔标准以评估某一效应的个体因果关系。这些构建补充了R.E.戈茨(1986年)早期关于建立概率性个人因果关系的指导意见。我们还考量了因果标准的收集以及环境学科(生物群生态学、人类生态流行病学和人类生态毒理学)的指南。在一个看似完整的资料来源库(1979 - 2020年)中,揭示了归纳性因果标准在最初、修正及补充后的完全主导地位。已发现所有基于指南的已知因果方案的改编情况,从亨勒 - 科赫假设到希尔和苏瑟的标准,包括在美国环境保护局的国际项目和实践中。世界卫生组织和其他化学安全组织(国际化学品安全规划署)使用希尔标准来评估动物实验中的因果关系,以便随后外推至人类。生态、生态流行病学和生态毒理学中效应因果关系评估的数据,以及希尔标准在动物实验中的应用,不仅对辐射生态学,而且对放射生物学都具有重要意义。