Schaffner K F
George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052.
Stat Med. 1993 Aug;12(15-16):1477-94; discussion 1495-9. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780121514.
In addition to the safety, it is essential to establish the causal efficacy of extant and new treatments, and well-designed clinical trials are thought by most to be the 'gold standard' to accomplish this. Contrary to most statisticians' and regulators' views, however, I will argue that the concept of causation involved in clinical trials is not all that clear. I discuss the manipulability approach to causation, interpreted counterfactually, which seems to fit causation as it is found in such sciences as physiology, but it has unclear relations to a concept of causation proposed by a number of epidemiologists. I characterize 'epidemiological causation' as probabilistic and formulated at a population level, and dependent on certain general criteria for causation as well as study-design considerations. I then attempt to clarify the connections between these concepts of causation and Cartwright's views on complexity and causality, a 'Bayesian' framework proposed by Rubin and further elaborated by Holland, and Glymour and his colleagues' recent directed graphical causal modelling approach.
除安全性外,确定现有治疗方法和新治疗方法的因果效力至关重要,大多数人认为精心设计的临床试验是实现这一目标的“金标准”。然而,与大多数统计学家和监管机构的观点相反,我将论证临床试验中涉及的因果概念并非那么清晰。我讨论了反事实解释的因果可操作性方法,这种方法似乎适用于生理学等科学中所发现的因果关系,但它与一些流行病学家提出的因果概念关系不明确。我将“流行病学因果关系”描述为概率性的,在人群层面上形成,并且依赖于某些因果关系的一般标准以及研究设计的考量。然后,我试图阐明这些因果概念与卡特赖特关于复杂性和因果关系的观点、鲁宾提出并由霍兰德进一步阐述的“贝叶斯”框架,以及格利穆尔及其同事最近的定向图形因果建模方法之间的联系。