在21世纪应用Bradford Hill标准:数据整合如何改变分子流行病学的因果推理。

IF 3.6 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Pub Date : 2015-09-30 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4
Kristen M Fedak, Autumn Bernal, Zachary A Capshaw, Sherilyn Gross
{"title":"在21世纪应用Bradford Hill标准:数据整合如何改变分子流行病学的因果推理。","authors":"Kristen M Fedak,&nbsp;Autumn Bernal,&nbsp;Zachary A Capshaw,&nbsp;Sherilyn Gross","doi":"10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1965, Sir Austin Bradford Hill published nine \"viewpoints\" to help determine if observed epidemiologic associations are causal. Since then, the \"Bradford Hill Criteria\" have become the most frequently cited framework for causal inference in epidemiologic studies. However, when Hill published his causal guidelines-just 12 years after the double-helix model for DNA was first suggested and 25 years before the Human Genome Project began-disease causation was understood on a more elementary level than it is today. Advancements in genetics, molecular biology, toxicology, exposure science, and statistics have increased our analytical capabilities for exploring potential cause-and-effect relationships, and have resulted in a greater understanding of the complexity behind human disease onset and progression. These additional tools for causal inference necessitate a re-evaluation of how each Bradford Hill criterion should be interpreted when considering a variety of data types beyond classic epidemiology studies. Herein, we explore the implications of data integration on the interpretation and application of the criteria. Using examples of recently discovered exposure-response associations in human disease, we discuss novel ways by which researchers can apply and interpret the Bradford Hill criteria when considering data gathered using modern molecular techniques, such as epigenetics, biomarkers, mechanistic toxicology, and genotoxicology. </p>","PeriodicalId":39896,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4","citationCount":"445","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century: how data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology.\",\"authors\":\"Kristen M Fedak,&nbsp;Autumn Bernal,&nbsp;Zachary A Capshaw,&nbsp;Sherilyn Gross\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 1965, Sir Austin Bradford Hill published nine \\\"viewpoints\\\" to help determine if observed epidemiologic associations are causal. Since then, the \\\"Bradford Hill Criteria\\\" have become the most frequently cited framework for causal inference in epidemiologic studies. However, when Hill published his causal guidelines-just 12 years after the double-helix model for DNA was first suggested and 25 years before the Human Genome Project began-disease causation was understood on a more elementary level than it is today. Advancements in genetics, molecular biology, toxicology, exposure science, and statistics have increased our analytical capabilities for exploring potential cause-and-effect relationships, and have resulted in a greater understanding of the complexity behind human disease onset and progression. These additional tools for causal inference necessitate a re-evaluation of how each Bradford Hill criterion should be interpreted when considering a variety of data types beyond classic epidemiology studies. Herein, we explore the implications of data integration on the interpretation and application of the criteria. Using examples of recently discovered exposure-response associations in human disease, we discuss novel ways by which researchers can apply and interpret the Bradford Hill criteria when considering data gathered using modern molecular techniques, such as epigenetics, biomarkers, mechanistic toxicology, and genotoxicology. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4\",\"citationCount\":\"445\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 445

摘要

1965年,奥斯汀·布拉德福德·希尔爵士(Austin Bradford Hill)发表了9个“观点”,以帮助确定观察到的流行病学关联是否存在因果关系。从那时起,“布拉德福德希尔标准”成为流行病学研究中最常被引用的因果推理框架。然而,当希尔发表他的因果关系指南时——仅仅在DNA双螺旋模型首次提出的12年后,在人类基因组计划开始的25年前——人们对疾病因果关系的理解比今天更初级。遗传学、分子生物学、毒理学、暴露科学和统计学的进步提高了我们探索潜在因果关系的分析能力,并使我们对人类疾病发生和发展背后的复杂性有了更深入的了解。在考虑经典流行病学研究之外的各种数据类型时,这些额外的因果推断工具需要重新评估每个布拉德福德希尔标准应该如何解释。在此,我们探讨了数据整合对标准解释和应用的影响。利用最近发现的人类疾病暴露-反应关联的例子,我们讨论了研究人员在考虑使用现代分子技术(如表观遗传学、生物标志物、机械毒理学和基因毒理学)收集的数据时应用和解释Bradford Hill标准的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century: how data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology.

In 1965, Sir Austin Bradford Hill published nine "viewpoints" to help determine if observed epidemiologic associations are causal. Since then, the "Bradford Hill Criteria" have become the most frequently cited framework for causal inference in epidemiologic studies. However, when Hill published his causal guidelines-just 12 years after the double-helix model for DNA was first suggested and 25 years before the Human Genome Project began-disease causation was understood on a more elementary level than it is today. Advancements in genetics, molecular biology, toxicology, exposure science, and statistics have increased our analytical capabilities for exploring potential cause-and-effect relationships, and have resulted in a greater understanding of the complexity behind human disease onset and progression. These additional tools for causal inference necessitate a re-evaluation of how each Bradford Hill criterion should be interpreted when considering a variety of data types beyond classic epidemiology studies. Herein, we explore the implications of data integration on the interpretation and application of the criteria. Using examples of recently discovered exposure-response associations in human disease, we discuss novel ways by which researchers can apply and interpret the Bradford Hill criteria when considering data gathered using modern molecular techniques, such as epigenetics, biomarkers, mechanistic toxicology, and genotoxicology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
9
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to promote debate and discussion on practical and theoretical aspects of epidemiology. Combining statistical approaches with an understanding of the biology of disease, epidemiologists seek to elucidate the social, environmental and host factors related to adverse health outcomes. Although research findings from epidemiologic studies abound in traditional public health journals, little publication space is devoted to discussion of the practical and theoretical concepts that underpin them. Because of its immediate impact on public health, an openly accessible forum is needed in the field of epidemiology to foster such discussion.
期刊最新文献
Explaining biological differences between men and women by gendered mechanisms. Population cause of death estimation using verbal autopsy methods in large-scale field trials of maternal and child health: lessons learned from a 20-year research collaboration in Central Ghana. Dynamics of COVID-19 progression and the long-term influences of measures on pandemic outcomes. Effect size quantification for interrupted time series analysis: implementation in R and analysis for Covid-19 research. Geographical clustering and geographically weighted regression analysis of home delivery and its determinants in developing regions of Ethiopia: a spatial analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1