为什么随机对照试验是金标准？随机实验与观察性研究之间的认识论差异。
Why are RCTs the Gold Standard? The Epistemological Difference Between Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies.
作者信息
Harshaw Christopher
机构信息
Statistics Columbia University.
出版信息
Obs Stud. 2025 Apr 11;11(1):41-46. doi: 10.1353/obs.2025.a956840. eCollection 2025.
Abstract
In response to Pearl, Aronow et al. (2025) argue that randomized experiments are special among causal inference methods due to their statistical properties. I believe that the key distinction between randomized experiments and observational studies is not statistical, but rather epistemological in nature. In this comment, I aim to articulate this epistemological distinction and argue that it ought to take a more central role in these discussions.
摘要
针对珀尔的观点，阿罗诺夫等人（2025年）认为，随机实验因其统计特性在因果推断方法中具有特殊性。我认为随机实验与观察性研究之间的关键区别并非统计学上的，而是本质上的认识论区别。在这篇评论中，我旨在阐明这种认识论区别，并认为它应该在这些讨论中发挥更核心的作用。
相似文献
1
Why are RCTs the Gold Standard? The Epistemological Difference Between Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies.为什么随机对照试验是金标准？随机实验与观察性研究之间的认识论差异。
Obs Stud. 2025 Apr 11;11(1):41-46. doi: 10.1353/obs.2025.a956840. eCollection 2025.
2
What randomization can and cannot guarantee.随机化能够保证和不能保证的事情。
Obs Stud. 2025 Apr 11;11(1):27-40. doi: 10.1353/obs.2025.a956839. eCollection 2025.
3
Commentary on ``Nonparametric identification is not enough, but randomized controlled trials are'': Statistical considerations for generating reliable evidence across a spectrum of studies that increasingly involve real-world elements.对《非参数识别不够，但随机对照试验足够》的评论：在越来越多地涉及现实世界因素的一系列研究中生成可靠证据的统计考量。
Obs Stud. 2025 Apr 11;11(1):61-76. doi: 10.1353/obs.2025.a956842. eCollection 2025.
4
Priors and Propensity Scores in Bayesian Causal Inference.贝叶斯因果推断中的先验概率和倾向得分
Obs Stud. 2025 Apr 11;11(1):47-60. doi: 10.1353/obs.2025.a956841. eCollection 2025.
5
Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment.直到 RCT 证明吗？关于风险评估证据要求的不对称性。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Jun;19(3):454-62. doi: 10.1111/jep.12039.
6
The Epistemological Weight of Randomized-Controlled Trials Depends on Their Results.随机对照试验的认识论权重取决于其结果。
Perspect Biol Med. 2018;61(2):157-173. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2018.0034.
7
Causal Inference in Oncology: Why, What, How and When.肿瘤学中的因果推断：为何、是什么、如何以及何时。
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2025 Feb;38:103616. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.07.002. Epub 2024 Jul 11.
8
An epistemological shift: from evidence-based medicine to epistemological responsibility.一种认识论的转变：从循证医学到认识论责任。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Jun;21(3):433-9. doi: 10.1111/jep.12282. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
9
The Epistemological Stance of Psychoanalysis: Revisiting the Kantian Legacy.精神分析的认识论立场：重新审视康德的遗产。
Psychoanal Q. 2020;89(2):281-304. doi: 10.1080/00332828.2020.1717229.
10
Enough?够了吗？
Obs Stud. 2025 Apr 11;11(1):17-26. doi: 10.1353/obs.2025.a956838. eCollection 2025.
本文引用的文献
1
Comparing IV With Structural Models: What Simple IV Can and Cannot Identify.比较工具变量法与结构模型：简单工具变量法能够识别和无法识别的内容。
J Econom. 2010 May 1;156(1):27-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.006.
2
Statistical models for causation: what inferential leverage do they provide?因果关系的统计模型：它们提供了哪些推理杠杆作用？
Eval Rev. 2006 Dec;30(6):691-713. doi: 10.1177/0193841X06293771.
Zotero 插件