| Title |
The causal explanatory functions of medical diagnoses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-016-9377-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hane Htut Maung |
| Abstract |
Diagnoses in medicine are often taken to serve as explanations of patients' symptoms and signs. This article examines how they do so. I begin by arguing that although some instances of diagnostic explanation can be formulated as covering law arguments, they are explanatory neither in virtue of their argumentative structures nor in virtue of general regularities between diagnoses and clinical presentations. I then consider the theory that medical diagnoses explain symptoms and signs by identifying their actual causes in particular cases. While I take this to be largely correct, I argue that for a diagnosis to function as a satisfactory causal explanation of a patient's symptoms and signs, it also needs to be supplemented by understanding the mechanisms by which the identified cause produces the symptoms and signs. This mechanistic understanding comes not from the diagnosis itself, but rather from the theoretical framework within which the physician operates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,942,504
of 24,220,739 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#99
of 317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,697
of 299,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,220,739 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.