Hill’s Considerations Are Not Causal Criteria
Hill’s list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it has been and continues to be misused as a list of causal criteria to be scored and summed, despite causal inference being unattainable through...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Journal of clinical epidemiology s. 112087 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
United States
Elsevier Inc
22.11.2025
|
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 0895-4356, 1878-5921, 1878-5921 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Hill’s list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it has been and continues to be misused as a list of causal criteria to be scored and summed, despite causal inference being unattainable through the application of this or any other algorithm. Recognizing the distinction between statistical associations and causal effects was a key contribution of Hill. While he identified several clues for distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations, causal inference in epidemiology has become much more explicit and effective. Rather than relying on Hill’s indirect hints of potential bias by considering strength of association or dose-response gradients, newer methods such as quantitative bias analysis directly assess confounding and other candidate biases that compete with causal explanations, leading to more informed inferences. Similarly, the interpretation of consistency depends on variation in methods across studies; triangulation may be used to search for informative inconsistencies, strengthening causal inference. Most importantly, a causal connection is not a categorical property bestowed upon an association based on Hill’s considerations or any other checklist. Causal inference is an inherently indirect process, with the inference gradually crystallizing by withstanding challenges from competing theories in which other explanations, including random error or biases, are found not to account for the measured association.
•Hill’s considerations have been misused as a checklist to certify a conclusion of causality•Epidemiologic methods for assessing causality have advanced considerably after Hill’s publication•Causal inference is not based on an algorithm but is a tentative explanation for an association, balancing evidence from competing candidate explanations |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Hill's list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it has been and continues to be misused as a list of causal criteria to be scored and summed, despite causal inference being unattainable through the application of this or any other algorithm. Recognizing the distinction between statistical associations and causal effects was a key contribution of Hill. While he identified several clues for distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations, causal inference in epidemiology has become much more explicit and effective. Rather than relying on Hill's indirect hints of potential bias by considering strength of association or dose-response gradients, newer methods such as quantitative bias analysis directly assess confounding and other candidate biases that compete with causal explanations, leading to more informed inferences. Similarly, the interpretation of consistency depends on variation in methods across studies; triangulation may be used to search for informative inconsistencies, strengthening causal inference. Most importantly, a causal connection is not a categorical property bestowed upon an association based on Hill's considerations or any other checklist. Causal inference is an inherently indirect process, with the inference gradually crystallizing by withstanding challenges from competing theories in which other explanations, including random error or biases, are found not to account for the measured association. Hill’s list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it has been and continues to be misused as a list of causal criteria to be scored and summed, despite causal inference being unattainable through the application of this or any other algorithm. Recognizing the distinction between statistical associations and causal effects was a key contribution of Hill. While he identified several clues for distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations, causal inference in epidemiology has become much more explicit and effective. Rather than relying on Hill’s indirect hints of potential bias by considering strength of association or dose-response gradients, newer methods such as quantitative bias analysis directly assess confounding and other candidate biases that compete with causal explanations, leading to more informed inferences. Similarly, the interpretation of consistency depends on variation in methods across studies; triangulation may be used to search for informative inconsistencies, strengthening causal inference. Most importantly, a causal connection is not a categorical property bestowed upon an association based on Hill’s considerations or any other checklist. Causal inference is an inherently indirect process, with the inference gradually crystallizing by withstanding challenges from competing theories in which other explanations, including random error or biases, are found not to account for the measured association. •Hill’s considerations have been misused as a checklist to certify a conclusion of causality•Epidemiologic methods for assessing causality have advanced considerably after Hill’s publication•Causal inference is not based on an algorithm but is a tentative explanation for an association, balancing evidence from competing candidate explanations Hill's list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it has been and continues to be misused as a list of causal criteria to be scored and summed, despite causal inference being unattainable through the application of this or any other algorithm. Recognizing the distinction between statistical associations and causal effects was a key contribution of Hill. While he identified several clues for distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations, causal inference in epidemiology has become much more explicit and effective. Rather than relying on Hill's indirect hints of potential bias by considering strength of association or dose-response gradients, newer methods such as quantitative bias analysis directly assess confounding and other candidate biases that compete with causal explanations, leading to more informed inferences. Similarly, the interpretation of consistency depends on variation in methods across studies; triangulation may be used to search for informative inconsistencies, strengthening causal inference. Most importantly, a causal connection is not a categorical property bestowed upon an association based on Hill's considerations or any other checklist. Causal inference is an inherently indirect process, with the inference gradually crystallizing by withstanding challenges from competing theories in which other explanations, including random error or biases, are found not to account for the measured association.Hill's list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it has been and continues to be misused as a list of causal criteria to be scored and summed, despite causal inference being unattainable through the application of this or any other algorithm. Recognizing the distinction between statistical associations and causal effects was a key contribution of Hill. While he identified several clues for distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations, causal inference in epidemiology has become much more explicit and effective. Rather than relying on Hill's indirect hints of potential bias by considering strength of association or dose-response gradients, newer methods such as quantitative bias analysis directly assess confounding and other candidate biases that compete with causal explanations, leading to more informed inferences. Similarly, the interpretation of consistency depends on variation in methods across studies; triangulation may be used to search for informative inconsistencies, strengthening causal inference. Most importantly, a causal connection is not a categorical property bestowed upon an association based on Hill's considerations or any other checklist. Causal inference is an inherently indirect process, with the inference gradually crystallizing by withstanding challenges from competing theories in which other explanations, including random error or biases, are found not to account for the measured association. |
| ArticleNumber | 112087 |
| Author | Pearce, Neil Rothman, Kenneth J. Savitz, David A. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: David A. orcidid: 0000-0002-3475-4113 surname: Savitz fullname: Savitz, David A. email: david_savitz@brown.edu organization: Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health – sequence: 2 givenname: Neil surname: Pearce fullname: Pearce, Neil organization: Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine – sequence: 3 givenname: Kenneth J. surname: Rothman fullname: Rothman, Kenneth J. organization: Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/41285283$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqNkL1OwzAUhS1URH_gFaqMLGn9E8fOgqgioEgIFpgtx76RHNKk2ClSN16D1-NJSNWWgQWme4fvHOl8YzRo2gYQmhI8I5ik82pWmdo1sHYziimfEUKxFCdoRKSQMc8oGaARlhmPE8bTIRqHUGFMBBb8DA0TQiWnko3QfOnq-uvjM0R52wRnwevO9V-08BA9tl2U603QdZR714F3-hydlroOcHG4E_Rye_OcL-OHp7v7fPEQG5oyEZdWSiJKlpLUcpoaBrrIRJoZTYUFY5lgmc5YAUYWpNBYksL0SJGwxCaaYzZBl_vetW_fNhA6tXLBQF3rBtpNUIwKThlLGOnR6QHdFCuwau3dSvutOo7sgXQPGN-G4KH8QQhWO5uqUkebamdT7W32wet9EPql7w68CsZBY8A6D6ZTtnV_V1z9qthRzuj6Fbb_KfgGcRSU9g |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2025 The Author(s) Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2025 The Author(s) – notice: Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| DBID | 6I. AAFTH AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112087 |
| DatabaseName | ScienceDirect Open Access Titles Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1878-5921 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 41285283 10_1016_j_jclinepi_2025_112087 S0895435625004202 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- --K --M -~X .1- .55 .FO .GJ .~1 0R~ 1B1 1P~ 1RT 1~. 1~5 29K 4.4 457 4CK 4G. 53G 5GY 5RE 5VS 7-5 71M 7RV 7X7 88E 8AO 8C1 8FI 8FJ 8G5 8P~ 9DU 9JM 9JO AABNK AAEDT AAEDW AAFJI AAIKJ AAKOC AALRI AAOAW AAQFI AAQXK AATTM AAWTL AAXKI AAXUO AAYJJ AAYWO ABBQC ABFNM ABIVO ABJNI ABLJU ABMAC ABMMH ABMZM ABOCM ABUWG ABWVN ABXDB ACDAQ ACGFS ACIEU ACIUM ACLOT ACPRK ACRLP ACRPL ACVFH ADBBV ADCNI ADEZE ADMUD ADNMO AEBSH AEIPS AEKER AENEX AEUPX AEUYN AEVXI AFFHD AFFNX AFJKZ AFKRA AFPUW AFRAH AFRHN AFTJW AFXIZ AGHFR AGQPQ AGUBO AGYEJ AHHHB AHMBA AIEXJ AIGII AIIUN AIKHN AITUG AJRQY AJUYK AKBMS AKRWK AKYEP ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ ANKPU ANZVX AOMHK APXCP AQUVI ASPBG AVARZ AVWKF AXJTR AZFZN AZQEC BENPR BKEYQ BKOJK BLXMC BNPGV BPHCQ BVXVI CCPQU CS3 D-I DU5 DWQXO EBS EFJIC EFKBS EFLBG EJD EMOBN EO8 EO9 EP2 EP3 EX3 F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN FYUFA G-2 G-Q GBLVA GNUQQ GUQSH HEH HMCUK HMK HMO HVGLF HZ~ IHE J1W KOM L7B M0T M1P M29 M2O M3W M41 MO0 N9A NAPCQ O-L O9- OAUVE OD~ OHT OO0 OZT P-8 P-9 P2P PC. PHGZM PHGZT PJZUB PPXIY PQQKQ PRBVW PROAC PSQYO Q38 R2- ROL RPZ SAE SCC SDF SDG SDP SEL SES SEW SPCBC SSB SSH SSO SSZ SV3 T5K UAP UKHRP WOW WUQ X7M XPP YHZ Z5R ZGI ~G- ~HD 6I. AAFTH AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c2637-fd8817f3616d526c3eab9769ca27decd3739a93bec8b1ba081bceabb434d4a503 |
| ISSN | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| IngestDate | Tue Nov 25 17:31:04 EST 2025 Wed Nov 26 04:20:47 EST 2025 Thu Nov 27 00:58:19 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 17:06:40 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 06:57:13 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Keywords | causal inference epidemiologic methods |
| Language | English |
| License | This is an open access article under the CC BY license. Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| LinkModel | OpenURL |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c2637-fd8817f3616d526c3eab9769ca27decd3739a93bec8b1ba081bceabb434d4a503 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-3475-4113 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S0895435625004202 |
| PMID | 41285283 |
| PQID | 3275233431 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_3275233431 pubmed_primary_41285283 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2025_112087 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2025_112087 elsevier_clinicalkey_doi_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2025_112087 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2025-Nov-22 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-11-22 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2025 text: 2025-Nov-22 day: 22 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | J Clin Epidemiol |
| PublicationYear | 2025 |
| Publisher | Elsevier Inc |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Elsevier Inc |
| SSID | ssj0017075 |
| Score | 2.4880612 |
| SecondaryResourceType | online_first |
| Snippet | Hill’s list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it... Hill's list of considerations for assessing causality, proposed 60 years ago, became a landmark in the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. However, it... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref elsevier |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
| StartPage | 112087 |
| SubjectTerms | causal inference epidemiologic methods |
| Title | Hill’s Considerations Are Not Causal Criteria |
| URI | https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S0895435625004202 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112087 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/41285283 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3275233431 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVESC databaseName: Elsevier SD Freedom Collection Journals 2021 customDbUrl: eissn: 1878-5921 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017075 issn: 0895-4356 databaseCode: AIEXJ dateStart: 19950101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com providerName: Elsevier |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3datswFBZbO8ZuSveftSse7C44tSVLsi5D6egKC4N2kDshyTJLLpxiJ6WXe4293p5kR5FsJ9CwbrAbY4wly-eTjz8dnR-EPiYaC6qogWWJNTEoPBVrqlwuQswEKzItmC82wSeTfDoVX0PBu2ZdToBXVX53J27-K9RwDcB2obN_AXfXKVyAcwAdjgA7HB8E_IVLUB1cGERfkTO4vI1rO5wslsMztWqc3aB2IcgztYOjdnGTti8k29ngr9TtbF0N1jvGD8ejDT1be-O8szH3ezrL78HeGqKBhpejTasDpi78Dvdr1C4cZstbM8kFjYF_sXt1szcTzEdzN3YY9sj160KYkvDL3c57feV6c50BSQPN4hKG7mNOBaiu_fHn8-llt1nEfT7l7ukbgeD3P20XB9m1xlhzjetDdBAAiMYe3Ofoka1eoKdfghvES3TqMP7142cTbaMLLWwE6EYe3ahF9xX69un8-uwiDpUvYoMZ4XFZ5HnKS8JSVlDMDLFKA28URmFeWFMQToQSBL6_XKdaAa3TBm7RGcmKTNGEvEZ71aKyb1EES05qC-XCQYHJCQs3K5OUPNVMlWVKBui0lYW88QlOZOv5N5et9KSTnvTSGyDeiky20xB-OBJw_mNL0bUMBM8Ttwe1_dCiI0EDum0tVdnFqpEEZgUmBJjwAL3xsHVvkgH9cumL3v3zmI_Qs37-H6O9Zb2y79ETc7ucNfUJesyn-UmYkL8BpgOJuA |
| linkProvider | Elsevier |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Hill%E2%80%99s+Considerations+Are+Not+Causal+Criteria&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+clinical+epidemiology&rft.au=Savitz%2C+David+A.&rft.au=Pearce%2C+Neil&rft.au=Rothman%2C+Kenneth+J.&rft.date=2025-11-22&rft.pub=Elsevier+Inc&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jclinepi.2025.112087&rft.externalDocID=S0895435625004202 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0895-4356&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0895-4356&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0895-4356&client=summon |