Archives → 2022 → Vol. 62, № 2 → pp. 115–163
Article
Causal Criteria in Medical and Biological Disciplines: History, Essence and Radiation Aspect. Report 4, Part 1: Post Hill Criteria and Ecological Criteria
A. N. Koterov, L. N. Ushenkova
A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
Part 1 of Report 4 is devoted to the development and modifications of causal criteria after A.B. Hill (1965). Criteria from the textbook B. MacMahon et al. (1970–1996), regarded as the first for the modern epidemiology, were considered and it was found that, despite the frequent mention of this source in relation to the theme, the named researchers did not offer anything new. A similar situation emerged with the criteria of M. Susser: the three obligatory points of this author «Association» (or «Probability» of causality), «Temporal order» and «Direction of effect» are trivial, and two more special criteria, which are the development of «Popperian Epidemiology», i.e. «Surviability» of the hypothesis when it is tested by different methods (included in the refinement in Hill’s criterion «Consistency of association») and «Predictive performance» of the hypothesis are more theoretical and hardly applicable for the practice of epidemiology and public health. The same restrictions apply to the similar «Popperian» criteria of D.L. Weed «Predictability» and «Testability» of the causal hypothesis. The universal postulates of A.S. Evans for infectious and non-infectious pathologies, although they can be considered exhaustive, due, probably, to the complication of the 10-point complex, neither epidemiology nor any other discipline practice not used, except for the field of infectious pathologies. The most important are the little-known criteria of P. Cole (1997) for medical and forensic practice. The three parts of Hill’s criterion-based approaches are important in that they go from a single epidemiological study through a cycle of studies (coupled with the integration of data from other biomedical disciplines) to re-based Hill’s criteria for assessing the individual causality of an effect. These constructs complement the earlier guidance from R.E. Gots (1986) on establishing probabilistic personal causation. The collection of causal criteria and guidelines for environmental disciplines (Ecology of biota, human Ecoepidemiology and human Ecotoxicology) were considered. For a complete, apparently, base of sources (1979–2020), the total dominance of inductive causal criteria, both initial and in modifications and with additions, was revealed. Adaptations of all known causal schemes based on guidelines have been found, from Henle-Koch postulates to A.B. Hill and M. Susser, including in the international programs and practice of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Hill Criteria are used by the WHO and other organizations on chemical safety (IPCS) to assess causality in animal experiments for subsequent extrapolation to humans. Data on the assessment of the causality of effects in Ecology, Ecoepidemiology, and Ecotoxicology, together with the use of Hill’s criteria for animal experiments, are of significant relevance not only for Radiation Ecology, but also for Radiobiology
Keywords
criteria for causality, the Hill criteria, M. Susser criteria, D.L. Weed criteria, A.S. Evans postulates, P. Cole criteria, ecological criteria
Current Issue
FAQs
Yes. Most of the journals accept submissions via e-mail .
Agreement as pdf file signed by all co-authors must be submitted by e-mail together with all materials of the article. Original hard copies of the agreement (two copies) must be sent by post to the address of the Editorial Board.