Affiliation:
1. University of Eastern Piedmont
Abstract
Abstract
The definition of metabolic syndrome (MetS) has been, and still is, extremely controversial. My purpose is not to give a solution to the associated debate but to argue that the controversy is at least partially due to the different ‘causal content’ of the various definitions: their theoretical validity and practical utility can be evaluated by reconstructing or making explicit the underlying causal structure. I will therefore propose to distinguish the alternative definitions according to the kinds of causal content they carry: (1) definitions grounded on associations, (2) definitions presupposing a causal model built upon statistical associations, and (3) definitions grounded on underlying mechanisms. I suggest that analysing definitions according to their causal content can be helpful in evaluating alternative definitions of some diseases. I want to show how the controversy over MetS suggests a distinction among three kinds of definitions based on how explicitly they characterise the syndrome in causal terms, and on the type of causality involved. I will call ‘type 1 definitions’ those definitions that are purely associative; ‘type 2 definitions’ the definitions based on statistical associations, plus generic medical and causal knowledge; and ‘type 3 definitions’ the definitions based on (hypotheses about) mechanisms. These kinds of definitions, although different, can be related to each other. A definition with more specific causal content may be useful in the evaluation of definitions characterised by a lower degree of causal specificity. Moreover, the identification of the type of causality involved is of help to constitute a good criterion for choosing among different definitions of a pathological entity.
In section (1) I introduce the controversy about MetS, in section (2) I propose some remarks about medical definitions and their ‘causal import’, and in section (3) I suggest that the different attitudes towards the definition of MetS are relevant to evaluate their explicative power.
Reference51 articles.
1. Aguilar-Salinas, C.A.; Rojas, R.; Gómez-Pérez, F.J.; Mehta, R.; Franco, A.; Olaiz, G.; and Rull, J.A. 2005. The metabolic syndrome: a concept hard to define Archives of Medical Research 36(3):223–31.
2. Alberti, K.G. 2005. Introduction to the metabolic syndrome. European Heart Journal Supplements 7 (D): D3–D5.10.1093/eurheartj/sui021
3. Alberti, K. G.; and Zimmet, P. F. 1998. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Provisional report of a WHO consultation. Diabetic Medicine 15(7): 539–53.10.1002/(SICI)1096-9136(199807)15:7<539::AID-DIA668>3.0.CO;2-S
4. Alberti, K.G.; Eckel, P.; Grundy, S.M. et al. 2009. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome. A joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation 120: 1640–5.
5. Alberti, K. G. M.; Zimmet, P.; Shaw, J. and IDF Epidemiology Task Force Consensus Group. 2005. The metabolic syndrome—a new worldwide definition. The Lancet 366(9491): 1059–62.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献