Hasty Generalizations.
Abstract
Of all the faults that characterize medical literature, those arising from hasty generalizations, by which we mean the deduction of conclusions from an insufficient number or an inadequate verification of facts, are the most prominent, and constitute the greatest hindrances to real progress in nearly all the departments of medical science. Next in baneful influence is the adoption and treatment of mere opinions or even suggestions, as though they were actual facts. From the simple facts that the elements of our food may be arranged, chemically, into nitrogenous and carbonaceous, and that the latter out of the living body are capable of uniting with oxygen and evolving heat, a Liebig announces the opinion that the nitrogenous elements of food are appropriated to the repair of the living tissues, and the carbonaceous to combustion and the support of temperature. Straightway this opinion is accepted, incorporated into our medical literature, and acted
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our findings suggest that in articles where authors did not mention external validity strengthening factors concerning generalizations across nationalities, which form about 47% of all 533 articles, the broad scope of result claims was insufficiently supported, indicating that hasty generalizations in medical research may have been common.
“Our findings therefore suggest that in these articles, which form about 47% of all 533 articles, the broad scope of result claims was insufficiently supported, indicating that hasty generalizations in medical research may have been common [10].”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review
Peters, U., Sherling, H. R., & Chin-Yee, B. (2024) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306749 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1884-09-06
- Volume
- III
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 268
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W4249383463
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History of Science and Medicine
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- hasty generalization, medical literature, scientific reasoning, Liebig, food composition, tissue repair, combustion, medical opinion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
