Epigenesis Theory: A Mathematical Model Relating Causal Concepts of Pathogenesis in Individuals to Disease Patterns in Populations

Abstract

A mathematical modeling approach called epigenesis theory is presented which relates three aspects of pathogenesis to the population distribution of disease. The three aspects of pathogenesis involve how two or more measured variables interact. They are 1) whether the measured variables are related to the same causal action, 2) whether there is only one pathogenic process leading to disease, and 3) whether the measured variables contribute to the same pathogenic process. Epigenesis theory defines the following multivariable relations between two disease causes: 1) "Complementary" causes contribute different causal actions to the sole pathogenic process leading to disease. They have multiplicative relations. 2) "Separate process" causes contribute different causal actions to different pathogenic processes. They have the relations of simple independent action which are slightly less than additive. 3) "Intermediate" causes contribute different causal actions to the same pathogenic process in the presence of additional pathogenic processes where at most one of them may also participate. They have relations somewhere between multiplicative and simple independent actions. 4) "Cooperative-competitive" causes share the same causal action and act within the same pathogenic process. Their relations can change from greater than multiplicative to less than simple independent action at increasing dichotomization points of the measured variables. Epigenesis theory unifies the sufficient-component causes model and the simple independent action model and exceeds either model in the range of observations it can explain. It is most useful given directly causal measured variables and specific disease outcomes, but it will assist in etiologic investigations of nonspecific outcomes in which new disease classifications are proposed. While it is less useful given surveillance-type variables such as age or sex or outcomes resulting from numerous pathogenic processes such as death, it gains utility as more causal variables are entered into an analysis and as more cut points of continuous complementary, independent, or intermediate variables are distinguished.

Inflammation as a Mediator of the Link between Mild to Moderate Renal Insufficiency and Endothelial Dysfunction in Essential Hypertension

“…To explore this hypothesis in our study, we modeled renal function by sequentially including endothelial function and CRP in multiple regression analyses. This technique can be used for investigating causal inferences in mechanistic hypotheses (24). It is intriguing that this analysis indicated that CRP is a stronger correlate of renal function and showed that endothelial function loses considerable explanatory power for the creatinine variance when tested in a model that includes both factors, CRP retaining a much stronger association with the outcome measure.…”

A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation

“…Unfortunately, some of these techniques have been found to provide far more ambiguous evidence on which to base mechanistic conclusions than was first believed. For example, analysis of patterns of joint effects has been proposed as a means of identifying causal structure [1], but simple counterexamples show that in general the underlying etiologic model cannot be readily identified[2]. Typically, some method is proposed under a sound theoretical argument in a specific analytic setting, but this method is subsequently applied in a more general context in which those specific theoretical conditions no longer hold.…”

Theory and practice of epidemiology

“…Festzuhalten bleibt, dass in der Epidemiologie selten übergeordnete Theorien explizit adressiert werden [48], obwohl sie im Berufsalltag sehr wohl relevant sindangefangen von Theorien zu Selektionsprozessen in Berufspopulationen [44] über Theorien zur Krankheitsverursachung [13,26,47] bis hin zur Ethik [46].…”