| Title |
Inference to the best explanation and mechanisms in medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-016-9365-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Dragulinescu |
| Abstract |
This article considers the prospects of inference to the best explanation (IBE) as a method of confirming causal claims vis-à-vis the medical evidence of mechanisms. I show that IBE is actually descriptive of how scientists reason when choosing among hypotheses, that it is amenable to the balance/weight distinction, a pivotal pair of concepts in the philosophy of evidence, and that it can do justice to interesting features of the interplay between mechanistic and population level assessments. |
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 States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 26% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#222
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,845
of 334,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 334,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.