Smoking and lung cancer¶
Cornfield, J., Haenszel, W., Hammond, E., Lilienfeld, A. M., Shimkin, M. B., & Wynder, E. L. (1959). Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(1), 173-203.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Confounding
- the concept has deep historical roots, articulated by John Stuart Mill 1843 in his methods of experimental inquiry (the method of difference requiring the treated and untreated cases to agree in all circumstances except the one being investigated), and elaborated through the 20 century by R.A. Fisher (randomization as defense against confounding in experimental contexts), Jerome Cornfield (epidemiological reasoning about smoking and lung cancer)
This sourceThe landmark epidemiological treatment of confounding (Cornfield's inequality) in the smoking–lung-cancer debate; supports D25-023.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Cornfield et al.'s own abstract argues no indirect agent could explain the smoking-lung-cancer association, the confounding logic; it does not frame the work as elaborating that concept.
“The magnitude of the excess lung-cancer risk among cigarette smokers is so great that the results can not be interpreted as arising from an indirect association of cigarette smoking with some other agent or characteristic, since this hypothetical agent would have to be at least as strongly associated with lung cancer as cigarette use; no such agent has been found or suggested.”
- the concept has deep historical roots, articulated by John Stuart Mill 1843 in his methods of experimental inquiry (the method of difference requiring the treated and untreated cases to agree in all circumstances except the one being investigated), and elaborated through the 20 century by R.A. Fisher (randomization as defense against confounding in experimental contexts), Jerome Cornfield (epidemiological reasoning about smoking and lung cancer)
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? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
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:ae5465ad5349 · see in the full table