Confusion in evaluating research quality comes from lack of clarity: The case for explicit research questions.
Clicks: 7
ID: 325415
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
1.8
/100
7 views
6 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #63 of 307 articles by views in american journal of epidemiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 307 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
A recent news article suggested observational studies confuse correlation and causation. Such confusion often arises from unclear research aims rather than inherent limitations of study design. We use this recent public critique of epidemiologic research to illustrate how ambiguity in study questions contributes to misinterpretation of findings. We argue that epidemiologic studies generally fall into three distinct categories (descriptive, predictive, and causal) and that each has different goals, assumptions, analytic approaches, and criteria for evaluation. Descriptive studies characterize the distribution of health outcomes, predictive studies aim to identify who will experience those outcomes, and causal studies seek to estimate the effects of interventions or exposures under well-defined counterfactual contrasts. Failure to clearly state which of these aims is being pursued makes it difficult to evaluate methods, assess validity, and interpret results. It also creates opportunities for critiques that may mischaracterize study intent or overstate limitations. We emphasize that observational studies can contribute to causal inference when aligned with explicit causal questions and supported by appropriate assumptions and design choices. We conclude that explicitly stating study aims and estimands would improve scientific communication, facilitate more appropriate critique, and strengthen the contribution of epidemiologic evidence to public health decision-making.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7203755183
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Matthew P Fox, Amelia K. Wesselink, Katrina Kezios, Tara E. Jenson, Marcia Pescador Jimenez |
| Journal | american journal of epidemiology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/aje/kwag201
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.