The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Generalizations in Clinical Trials—Do Generics Help Or Harm?
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Generalizations in medical research can be informative, but also misleading. Building on recent work in the philosophy of science and ethics of communication, I offer a novel analysis of common generalizations in clinical trials as generics in natural language. Generics, which express generalizations without terms of quantification, have attracted considerable attention from philosophers, psychologists, and linguists. My analysis draws on probabilistic and contextual features of generics to diagnose how these generalizations function and malfunction across communicative contexts in medicine. Given a high risk of misinterpretation ("slippage"), I recommend avoidance of generic claims about medical interventions in public contexts, exemplified by clinical trials and medical research more generally. Generics should only be used with vigilance in private contexts, exemplified by the physician–patient encounter. My analysis provides tools to support vigilance when communicating with generics, suggests new norms for public science communication, and raises deeper questions in the ethics of clinical communication.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Generics are known to obscure differences between individuals of a reference class since they are semantically underdetermined (e.g. the generic ‘children like sweets’ may refer to some, most, or all children) [18,26].”
From Generalization bias in large language model summarization of scientific research (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Such transitions to generic generalizations could mislead practitioners into using unsafe interventions [26].”
From Generalization bias in large language model summarization of scientific research (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Generics are problematic in science communication because they are semantically underdetermined (e.g., the generic “people with OCD benefit from CBT” may refer to some, many, or all people with OCD), implying broad, timeless conclusions while disguising variability, risking misinterpretation [15–17].”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“However, despite increasing attention to the quality of clinical trial reporting [19–21] and generics use in science [15,17,18], it remains unclear to what extent medical researchers produce hasty generalizations, how impactful articles with such generalizations are, and whether the generalizations in primary research articles differ in their scope (e.g., generics use) from those found in research”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“The use of generics in medical articles can be risky because, unlike quantified generalizations about a population, generics obscure differences between individuals within clinical groups and underdetermine prevalence, making claims inherently harder to test [8,15,17].”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“These features of generics can cause miscommunication, as clinicians may need more background information to determine what prevalence level any given generic conveys [17].”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“However, if key generalizability strengthening (or limiting) factors remain implicit in articles, since not all readers may share the relevant tacit common ground in specific fields, the generalizations in the articles might still be insufficiently specified to avoid misinterpretation, suggesting the scope of the generalizations remains problematic [17].”
From Hasty generalizations and generics in medical research: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generalization bias in large language model summarization of scientific research
Peters, U., & Chin-Yee, B. (2025) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.241776 · Cited by 126
“Generics are known to obscure differences between individuals of a reference class since they are semantically underdetermined (e.g. the generic ‘children like sweets’ may refer to some, most, or all children) [18,26].”
Self-citationHasty 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
Self-citationPeters, U., Bertazzoli, A., DeJesus, J. M., van der Velden, G. J., & Chin-Yee, B. H. (2026) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625261425891 · Cited by 2
Self-citationMedicine’s over-generalization problem — and how AI might make things worse
Chin-Yee, B., & Peters, U. (2025) · doi:10.64628/aam.7jm3f9tfa
Self-citationTrustworthiness, Non-Manipulation, and Public Health Guidance for Individuals
Harvard, S. S., & Winsberg, E. B. (2026) · Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.5195/pom.2026.340
Metadata
- Authors
- Chin-Yee, B.
- Corresponding author
- Chin-Yee, Benjamin
- ORCID
- Chin-Yee, Benjamin
- Venue
- Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-400
- ISSN
- 1054-6863 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3249
- OpenAlex
- W4400248253
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Keywords
- generics, generalization, clinical trials, natural language, contextual meaning, slippage, misinterpretation, science communication, communication ethics, physician-patient communication, medical research reporting
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Generalizations in Clinical Trials—Do Generics Help Or Harm? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/ken.2023.a931051
- The paper
- Chin-Yee, B. (2023). Generalizations in Clinical Trials—Do Generics Help Or Harm? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2023.a931051
