Cited by 253Philosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationHealth Sciences Research and EducationAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy

Open access

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Debré P (1994) Louis Pasteur. The John Hopkins University Press. English translation by Elborg Forster, 1998
  2. Hedström P, Swedberg R (1988) Social mechanism: an analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  3. Howick J (2011) Exposing the vanities—and a qualified defence—of mechanistic evidence in clinical decision-making. Philos Sci 78(5):926–940. Proceedings of the Biennial PSA 2010
  4. Lucas R (1976) Econometric policy evaluation. In: Brunner K, Meltzer A (eds) The Phillips curve and labor markets, volume 1 of Carnegie–Rochester conference series on public policy. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 161–168
  5. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011) The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
  6. Rothman K, Greenland S, Lash T (2008) Modern epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Illari, Phyllis
Venue
Topoi
Published
2013-12-03
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
339-360
ISSN
  • 0167-7411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8749
OpenAlex
W1965394391
Cited by
253
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
70.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Topoi (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Cambridge
  • University of Oxford
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Vlaamse regering
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/J011185/1)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
evidence hierarchy, evidence-based medicine, causal claims, causal inference

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