Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Journal of Epidemiology
Erschienen in: European Journal of Epidemiology 12/2020

28.11.2020 | ESSAY

When will individuals meet their personalized probabilities? A philosophical note on risk prediction

verfasst von: Olaf M. Dekkers, Jesse M. Mulder

Erschienen in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Ausgabe 12/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Risk prediction is one of the central goals of medicine. However, ultimate prediction–perfectly predicting whether individuals will actually get a disease–is still out of reach for virtually all conditions. One crucial assumption of ultimate personalized prediction is that individual risks in the relevant sense exist. In the present paper we argue that perfect prediction at the individual level will fail–and we will do so by providing pragmatic, epistemic, conceptual, and ontological arguments.
Literatur
1.
Ganz P, Heidecker B, Hveem K, Jonasson C, Kato S, Segal MR, et al. Development and validation of a protein-based risk score for cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable coronary heart disease. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2532–41.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Kent DM, Steyerberg E, van Klaveren D. Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2018;363:k4245.CrossRef
3.
Goodman SN. Probability at the bedside: the knowing of chances or the chances of knowing? Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(7):604–6.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Mahmood SS, Levy D, Vasan RS, Wang TJ. The Framingham Heart Study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease: a historical perspective. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 2014;383(9921):999–1008.CrossRef
5.
Piccininni M, Konigorski S, Rohmann JL, Kurth T. Directed acyclic graphs and causal thinking in clinical risk prediction modeling. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):179.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Ickerman BA, Hernán MA. Counterfactual prediction is not only for causal inference. Eur J epidemiol. 2005;35(7):615–7.CrossRef
7.
Mulder JM. A Vital Challenge to Materialism. Philosophy. 2016;91(2):153–82.CrossRef
8.
Earman J. A Primer on Determinism: D. Reidel; D. Reidel Publishing Company; Dordrecht 1986.
9.
Cartwright N. Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009.
10.
Dahabreh IJ, Hayward R, Kent DM. Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):2184–93.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Stern RH. Individual risk. J clin hypertens (Greenwich, Conn). 2012;14(4):261–4.CrossRef
12.
13.
Personalized GA, Medicine P. In: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Medicine. Jeremy R Simon, Harold Kincaid: Edited ByMiriam Solomon; 2016.
14.
Saracci R. Epidemiology in wonderland: Big Data and precision medicine. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(3):245–57.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Smith GD. Post-modern epidemiology: when methods meet matter. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(8):1410–9.CrossRef
16.
Smith GD. Epidemiology, epigenetics and the “Gloomy Prospect”: embracing randomness in population health research and practice. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):537–62.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Coggon DI, Martyn CN. Time and chance: the stochastic nature of disease causation. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 2005;365(9468):1434–7.CrossRef
19.
Giere RN. Objective Single-Case Probabilities and the Foundations of Statistics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. 74: Elsevier; 1973. p. 467–83.
20.
Gillies D. Varieties of propensity. Br J Philosophy Sci. 2000;51(4):807–35.CrossRef
21.
22.
Dupré JA, Nicholson DJ. A Manifesto for a Processual Philosophy of Biology. In Nicholson DJ, Dupre JA, editors. Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology. Oxford University Press, USA; 2018.
23.
Dupré J. Living Causes. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 2013;87(1):19–37.
24.
Vandenbroucke JP. Cerebral sinus thrombosis and oral contraceptives there are limits to predictability. BMJ (Clin res ed). 1998;317(7157):483–4.CrossRef
25.
Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF. Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci. 2000;67(1):1–25.CrossRef
26.
27.
Loos RJF, Janssens A. Predicting polygenic obesity using genetic information. Cell Metab. 2017;25(3):535–43.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Morris RW, Cooper JA, Shah T, Wong A, Drenos F, Engmann J, et al. Marginal role for 53 common genetic variants in cardiovascular disease prediction. Heart. 2016;102(20):1640–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Joyner MJ, Paneth N. Promises, promises, and precision medicine. J Clin Investig. 2019;129(3):946–8.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Smith GD, Egger M. Incommunicable knowledge? Interpreting and applying the results of clinical trials and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(4):289–95.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Knowles JW, Ashley EA. Cardiovascular disease: The rise of the genetic risk score. PLoS Med. 2018;15(3):e1002546-e.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
When will individuals meet their personalized probabilities? A philosophical note on risk prediction
verfasst von
Olaf M. Dekkers
Jesse M. Mulder
Publikationsdatum
28.11.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
European Journal of Epidemiology / Ausgabe 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00700-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2020

European Journal of Epidemiology 12/2020 Zur Ausgabe

EDITORIAL

A note of thanks

DIABETES MELLITUS

Body mass index and height in relation to type 2 diabetes by levels of intelligence and education in a large cohort of Danish men

INFECTIOUS DISEASE EPIDEMIOLOGY

Serum copper-to-zinc-ratio and risk of incident infection in men: the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study

RESPIRATORY DISEASES

Early life exposures and risk of adult respiratory disease during 50 years of follow-up

CORRESPONDENCE

Total dietary antioxidant capacity and risk of type 2 diabetes

CORRESPONDENCE

Total dietary antioxidant capacity and risk of type 2 diabetes