与 RCT 的非相似性及其对第二代因果知识的影响。

A disanalogy with RCTs and its implications for second-generation causal knowledge.

机构信息

Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Behav Brain Sci. 2023 Sep 11;46:e194. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22002242.

DOI:10.1017/S0140525X22002242

PMID:37694935

Abstract

We are less optimistic than Madole & Harden that family-based genome-wide association studies (GWASs) will lead to significant second-generation causal knowledge. Despite bearing some similarities, family-based GWASs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not identical. Most RCTs assess a relatively homogenous causal stimulus as a treatment, whereas GWASs assess highly heterogeneous causal stimuli. Thus, GWAS results will not translate so easily into second-generation causal knowledge.

摘要

我们并不像 Madole 和 Harden 那样乐观地认为基于家庭的全基因组关联研究（GWAS）将导致重大的第二代因果知识。尽管存在一些相似之处，但基于家庭的 GWAS 和随机对照试验（RCT）并不完全相同。大多数 RCT 评估的是作为治疗的相对同质的因果刺激，而 GWAS 评估的是高度异质的因果刺激。因此，GWAS 结果不会如此轻易地转化为第二代因果知识。