Epistemologic Inquiries in Evidence-Based Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the term "evidence-based medicine" (EBM) first appeared in the scientific literature in 1991, the concept has had considerable influence in many parts of the world. Most professional societies, the public,and funding agencies have accepted EBM with remarkable enthusiasm. The concept of evidence-based practice is now applied in management, education, criminology, and social work. Yet, EBM has attracted controversy: its critics allege that EBM uses a narrow concept of evidence and a naive conception of the relationships between evidence, theory, and practice. They also contend that EBM presents itself as a radical restructuring of medical knowledge that discredits more traditional ways of knowing in medicine, largely in the interests of people with a particular investment in the enterprise of large-scale clinical trials. Because EBM proposes aspecific relationship between theory, evidence, and knowledge, its theoretical basis can be understood as an epistemological system. Undertaking epistemological inquiry is important because the adoption of a particular epistemological view defines how science is conducted. METHODS: In this paper, we challenge this critical view of EBM by examining how EBM fits into broad epistemological debates within the philosophy of science. We consider how EBM relates to some classical debates regarding the nature of science and knowledge. We investigate EBM from the perspective of major epistemological theories (logical-positivism/inductivism, deductivism/falsificationism/theory-ladeness of observations, explanationism/holism, instrumentalism, underdetermination theory by evidence). RESULTS: We first explore the relationship between evidence and knowledge and discuss philosophical support for the main way that evidence is used in medicine: (1) in the philosophical tradition that "rational thinkers respect their evidence," we show that EBM refers to making medical decisions that are consistent with evidence, (2) as a reliable sign, symptom, or mark to enhance reasonableness or truthfulness of some particular claim ("evidence as a guide to truth"), and (3) to serve as a neutral arbiter among competing views. Our analysis indicates that EBM does not have a rigorous epistemological stance. In fact, EBM enthusiastically draws on all major traditions of philosophical theories of scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that EBM should not be construed as a new scientific or philosophical theory that changes the nature of medicine or our understanding thereof. Rather, we should consider EBM as a continuously evolving heuristic structure for optimizing clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".