The Environment and Disease¶
Hill, A. B. (1965). The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295-300.
Cited by¶
6 citations across 6 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Causality
- Epidemiology codifies causal reasoning in Bradford-Hill criteria for inferring causation from association: strength of association, dose-response, temporal ordering, consistency across studies, biological plausibility, coherence with existing theory, experimental evidence, specificity, and analogy to known causal pathways.
This sourceThe Presidential Address that sets out the nine viewpoints (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy) for inferring causation from association.
- Epidemiology codifies causal reasoning in Bradford-Hill criteria for inferring causation from association: strength of association, dose-response, temporal ordering, consistency across studies, biological plausibility, coherence with existing theory, experimental evidence, specificity, and analogy to known causal pathways.
- Confounding
This sourceArticulates the nine viewpoints (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy) for inferring causation from epidemiological association. (Bibliography only — link added.)
- Dose-Response Relationship
- Not a causal claim without experimental structure: a dose-response curve derived from observational data without exposure control is susceptible to confounding; the construct's full inferential force depends on experimental or quasi-experimental design—a recognition Hill (1965) codified in his canonical criteria for distinguishing association from causation, where "biological gradient" (a coherent dose-response curve) is one of nine criteria, none individually sufficient.
This sourceArticulates nine viewpoints (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy) for inferring causation from association; supports D47-021 (biological gradient / dose-response as one of nine criteria, none individually sufficient).
- Not a causal claim without experimental structure: a dose-response curve derived from observational data without exposure control is susceptible to confounding; the construct's full inferential force depends on experimental or quasi-experimental design—a recognition Hill (1965) codified in his canonical criteria for distinguishing association from causation, where "biological gradient" (a coherent dose-response curve) is one of nine criteria, none individually sufficient.
- Experimental Design
- Experimental design clarifies the relationship between research questions, causal claims, and data structure, a clarification Hill (1965) advanced in his classic enumeration of criteria for causal inference.
This sourceArticulates nine criteria/viewpoints (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, analogy) for inferring causation from epidemiological association.
- Experimental design clarifies the relationship between research questions, causal claims, and data structure, a clarification Hill (1965) advanced in his classic enumeration of criteria for causal inference.
Mechanisms¶
- Causal-Claim Labeling Template
- The discipline that guards against this is to require the named evidence and assumptions for each rung and to route the sign-off through someone without a stake in the conclusion, weighing the association against structured criteria for causal plausibility rather than the strength of the coefficient alone.
This sourceSets out multiple considerations for assessing whether an observed association is causal and warns that strength of association alone is not decisive.
- The discipline that guards against this is to require the named evidence and assumptions for each rung and to route the sign-off through someone without a stake in the conclusion, weighing the association against structured criteria for causal plausibility rather than the strength of the coefficient alone.
- Causal-Temporal Trace
- The classic misuse is the post hoc ergo propter hoc trap in reverse — treating the trace's clean arrows as proof of cause rather than as a consistency check on order.
This sourceTreats temporal order as a necessary causal-consistency check while warning that it is not, by itself, proof of causation.
- The classic misuse is the post hoc ergo propter hoc trap in reverse — treating the trace's clean arrows as proof of cause rather than as a consistency check on order.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 6 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9c6a2586f92d · see in the full table