hypothesis meaning in medicine

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Introduction to...

Introduction to clinical reasoning

• Related content
• Peer review
• Alison Round , consultant in public health medicine 1
• 1 North and East Devon Health Authority, Southernhay East, Exeter

How do doctors make decisions? Alison Round explains some of the thought processes that lead to a diagnosis

Doctors make decisions all the time - what the problem is, what the diagnosis is, whether to do anything, what to do. What facts do doctors take into account when they come to a decision, and what processes do they use to decide on a course of action? Where does intuition come from? These are the basics of clinical reasoning. When decisions are made in conjunction with the patient, doctors need to have an understanding of the “building blocks” of their thinking in order to explain this to the patient and to explore areas where differences in values and opinion may occur.

In all fields, not just medicine, experts make decisions in very different ways from students or beginners. Traditional bedside teaching guides students to take a history and perform an examination before constructing a differential diagnosis. In real life, however, experienced doctors do not work like this. They utilise a number of shortcuts (heuristics), based on knowledge and previous experience, which enable them to work much more quickly and, in general, more accurately than students. 1 There are many advantages to heuristics, such as very rapid processing and an ability to handle complex information without overload. There are, however, also a number of biases incorporated in the heuristics that may lead to poor decision making. 2 This article aims to discuss the processes and biases, using making a diagnosis as an example, and considers how improvements could be made.

Clinical reasoning in differential diagnosis

Experts use three main methods, or a combination of these, in making a diagnosis. Probably the most common is the hypothetico-deductive approach. An initial hypothesis or hypotheses are generated very early during the initial presentation of the problem, from existing knowledge, associations, and experience. Further questions or examination are oriented towards supporting or refuting these first ideas. If an hypoth- esis is discarded, an alternative one is considered and treated in the same way. Several hypotheses can be actively considered at any one time. Both awareness of probabilities (prevalence) of disease and knowledge of causal pathways are important. 3

Pattern recognition is also common. A particular combination of symptoms, or even certain phrases used to describe a symptom, can suggest a diagnosis very strongly. People build up their own internal library of patterns on the basis of their experience and existing knowledge.

Finally, pathognomonic signs and symptoms exist where a particular finding almost guarantees a certain diagnosis. Ulnar deviation in rheumatoid arthritis, Kaiser-Fleischer rings in Wilson's disease, and the slow relaxing jerks of hypothyroidism are examples. Unfortunately, most of these findings are rare and of little help in day to day practice.

All diagnostic methods depend on breadth and depth of knowledge, but the application of knowledge is not as straightforward as it seems. The use of algorithms (following a structured guideline to reach a diagnosis) is not welcomed by many doctors, despite their accuracy and relative freedom from bias. Professionals may consider they have enough confidence in their unaided decision making, describing algorithms as too time consuming. 4

Biases in thinking

Several common features of thinking can occur during the clinical reasoning process. These are known as cognitive biases. Firstly, there is the difficulty in estimating probabilities accurately, giving undue weight to small samples, or overestimating the similarity between people or events (often known as representativeness bias). Secondly, there is a tendency to attribute too much weight to easily available information, or to an event that is easily remem- bered because of particularly salient features; an example is overestimation of the probability of death by lightning. Thirdly, some people, when asked to estimate the probability of an event, place the initial probability at too extreme a figure and then make insufficient adjustment for subsequent information. Finally, there is also a bias towards positive and confirming evidence at the expense of negative evidence.

The case studies illustrate these points. When you read case study 1 ( table ), imagine you are seeing a patient in an accident and emergency department, and think what is going through your mind at each point.

• View inline

When doctors are not certain about a diagnosis they search for more information, either from the history or examination or by performing investigations or tests. One important source of bias in handling information is incorrect application or interpretation of tests. Case study 2 ( box 1 ) considers these points (see below for answers).

Box 1: Case study 2

Estimate the probabilities for yourself. A 40 year old woman has intermittent chest pain, sometimes associated with exercise, for 6 weeks. She is worried about ischaemic heart disease as her cousin has just had a heart attack at the age of 47. History and examination are unhelpful. What do you estimate as the probability of her pain being angina? She now has an exercise electrocardiogram which shows positive changes after 5 minutes. What do you estimate the probability of angina to be after this? She also has a thallium scan, which is normal. What do you estimate the final probability of angina to be after these test results?

Bayes' theorem and its uses

Bayes' theorem is a simple formula which suggests how one should modify one's original idea in the light of new information. In the case above, the new information is in the form of test results. In order to work out how much modification is necessary with the positive exercise electrocardiogram, one needs to know what the chance of having a positive test result is when the disease is present and what the chance of having a positive test result is when the disease is absent. This gives an idea of the diagnostic value of a test, is called the likelihood ratio, and can be calculated from the sensitivity and specificity of tests (see box 2 ).

Box 2: Calculating likelihood ratios

In the example above, assume that the sensitivity of an exercise electrocardiogram is 60%, or 0.6, and the specificity is 91%, or 0.91, for the diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease. From these the likelihood ratio can be calculated. The formula for the likelihood ratio is

Sensitivity / 1-specificity

In this case the likelihood ratio is 0.6/0.09=6.7 In order to calculate the chance that disease is present when the test is positive, Bayes' theorem uses odds, rather than probabilities. (Odds range from 0 to infinity, probability is bounded between 0 and 1. A version of Bayes' theorem that uses probabilities is available, but is more complicated.) Chance of disease with positive test (posterior odds)=initial odds * likelihood ratio The prior probability of disease is 1%, or P=0.01. This needs to be converted to the prior odds of disease by using the formula “odds=P/1-P.” Here, prior odds are 0.0101. The posterior odds-the odds of disease after the test result is known-are:

0.0101*6.7=0.0677

Conversion of odds back to probabilities “probability=odds/(1+odds)” gives the final probability as 0.063 or 6.3%. As can be seen, when probabilities are small there is little difference between odds and probabilities, and a rough estimate can be made simply by multiplying the initial probability by the likelihood ratio. A similar calculation can be performed using the negative result of the thallium scan; a likelihood ratio for a negative test should be used.

The sensitivity of a test is equivalent to the chance of having a positive test result when the disease is present. The specificity of a test is equivalent to the chance of having a negative test result when the disease is absent, and therefore (12specificity) is the chance of having a positive test result when the disease is absent.

Bayes' theorem is perceived to be complicated and difficult to understand. If, however, the initial probability of disease can be estimated (which one does whether or not Bayes' theorem is being used), estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of tests can be used easily to arrive at a final (posterior) probability of a diagnosis, given a particular test result. Such data are available for many investigations, but the method is not generally taught when differential diagnosis is being discussed.

In the case study above, most people estimate the probabilities as about 5% initially, rising to about 70% with the positive exercise test and back to about 50% with a negative thallium scan. In fact the actual probabilities are 1%, 6%, and 2% respectively. So whereas the initial probability is not far wrong, the final estimate is markedly inaccurate. The positive exercise test seems much more important than it is, partly because the initial probability of disease is so low that more positive tests are false positives than true positives. What Bayes' theorem demonstrates is that for diseases that are initially unlikely, a positive test of reasonable sensitivity and specificity increases the absolute chance of disease by only a small amount. Conversely, for diseases where the prior probability is very high, a positive test may add very little, or a negative test may not substantially reduce the chances of disease. Box 3 shows some tips to improve clinical reasoning.

Box 3: Tips for improving clinical reasoning

Reflect on the reasons that make you consider a particular diagnosis in each case Estimate the initial probability as carefully as you can Ask what the sensitivity and specificity is when a test is being discussed Remember that negative results are just as important as positive ones

This article has covered only a basic introduction. There are several good texts that provide more information, such as Clinical Epidemiology by Sackett et al, and Professional Judgement , edited by Dowie et al. 5 6

For particularly interested readers, the publications by Elstein et al 7 and Kahnemann et al 8 are strongly recommended, as are articles discussing other theoretical approaches to clinical reasoning. 9

Originally published as: Student BMJ 2000;08:15

• ↵ Kassirer JP, Kuipers BJ, Gorry GA. Toward a theory of clinical expertise. Am J Med 1982 ; 73 : 251 –9. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Tversky A, Kahnemann D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974 ; 185 : 1124 –31. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Kassirer JP. Diagnostic reasoning. Ann Intern Med 1989 ; 110 : 893 –900. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Pearson SD, Goldman L, Garcia TB, Cook EF, Lee TH. Physician response to a prediction rule for the triage of emergency department patients with chest pain. J Gen Int Med 1994 9 ( 5 ): 241 –7. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine . Boston : Little, Brown , 1991
• ↵ Dowie J, Elstein A. Professional judgement. A reader in clinical decision making . Cambridge , Cambridge University Press , 1988 .
• ↵ Elstein AS, Shulman LS, Sprafka SA. Medical problem solving-an analysis of clinical reasoning . Cambridge, Massachusetts , Harvard University Press , 1978 .
• ↵ Kahnemann D, Tversky A, eds. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases . New York : Cambridge University Press , 1982 : 359 –69.
• ↵ Greenwood J. Theoretical approaches to the study of nurses' clinical reasoning: getting things clear. Contemp Nurse 1998 ; 7 : 110 –6. OpenUrl PubMed

What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)

If...,Then...

Angela Lumsden/Getty Images

• Scientific Method
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observation. The definition depends on the subject.

In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one.

In the study of logic, a hypothesis is an if-then proposition, typically written in the form, "If X , then Y ."

In common usage, a hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation or prediction, which may or may not be tested.

Writing a Hypothesis

Most scientific hypotheses are proposed in the if-then format because it's easy to design an experiment to see whether or not a cause and effect relationship exists between the independent variable and the dependent variable . The hypothesis is written as a prediction of the outcome of the experiment.

• Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis

Statistically, it's easier to show there is no relationship between two variables than to support their connection. So, scientists often propose the null hypothesis . The null hypothesis assumes changing the independent variable will have no effect on the dependent variable.

In contrast, the alternative hypothesis suggests changing the independent variable will have an effect on the dependent variable. Designing an experiment to test this hypothesis can be trickier because there are many ways to state an alternative hypothesis.

For example, consider a possible relationship between getting a good night's sleep and getting good grades. The null hypothesis might be stated: "The number of hours of sleep students get is unrelated to their grades" or "There is no correlation between hours of sleep and grades."

An experiment to test this hypothesis might involve collecting data, recording average hours of sleep for each student and grades. If a student who gets eight hours of sleep generally does better than students who get four hours of sleep or 10 hours of sleep, the hypothesis might be rejected.

But the alternative hypothesis is harder to propose and test. The most general statement would be: "The amount of sleep students get affects their grades." The hypothesis might also be stated as "If you get more sleep, your grades will improve" or "Students who get nine hours of sleep have better grades than those who get more or less sleep."

In an experiment, you can collect the same data, but the statistical analysis is less likely to give you a high confidence limit.

Usually, a scientist starts out with the null hypothesis. From there, it may be possible to propose and test an alternative hypothesis, to narrow down the relationship between the variables.

Example of a Hypothesis

Examples of a hypothesis include:

• If you drop a rock and a feather, (then) they will fall at the same rate.
• Plants need sunlight in order to live. (if sunlight, then life)
• Eating sugar gives you energy. (if sugar, then energy)
• White, Jay D.  Research in Public Administration . Conn., 1998.
• Schick, Theodore, and Lewis Vaughn.  How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age . McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002.
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• Independent Variable Definition and Examples
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
• What Is an Experiment? Definition and Design
• Hypothesis Test for the Difference of Two Population Proportions

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.  

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference. 

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• TheFreeDictionary
• Word / Article
• Starts with
• Free toolbar & extensions
• Word of the Day
• Free content

hy·poth·e·sis

Significance .

• ad hoc hypothesis
• alpha error
• alternative hypothesis
• APUD hypothesis
• Avogadro law
• Avogadro number
• Avogadro, Amadeo
• baby lung hypothesis
• background level
• Bayes theorem
• Bayesian hypothesis
• Beadle, George Wells
• bread mould
• chi squared test
• cohesion-tension hypothesis
• hypothalamic dysfunction
• hypothalamic fever
• hypothalamic infundibulum
• hypothalamic nucleus
• hypothalamic obesity
• hypothalamic sulcus
• hypothalamic-pituitary axis
• hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
• hypothalamocerebellar fibers
• hypothalamo-hypophyseal portal system
• hypothalamohypophysial
• hypothalamospinal fibers
• Hypothalamus
• hypothenar eminence
• hypothenar fascia
• hypothenar hammer syndrome
• hypothenar-hammer syndrome
• hypothermal
• hypothermia
• hypothermia blanket
• hypothermia therapy
• hypothermia treatment
• hypothermic anesthesia
• hypothermic circulatory arrest
• hypothesis test
• hypothesis to test
• hypothetic mean organism
• hypothetic mean strain
• hypothetical mean organism
• hypothrombinemia
• hypothromboplastinemia
• hypothymism
• hypothyroid
• hypothyroid dwarf
• hypothyroidism
• hypothyroxinemia
• hypotonia-cystinuria syndrome
• hypotonic duodenography
• hypotonic labor
• hypotonic saline
• hypotonic solution
• hypotonic uterine dysfunction
• hypotonicity
• hypotony maculopathy
• Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest
• Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest Registry
• Hypothermia, induced
• hypothermic
• Hypothermic machine perfusion
• hypothermicly
• Hypothèse Extraterrestre
• Hypothesis Driven Lexical Adaptation
• Hypothesis test
• Hypothesis testing
• hypothesis testing sampling
• Hypothesis-Based Testing
• Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians
• hypothesise
• hypothesised
• hypothesiser
• hypothesisers
• hypothesises
• Facebook Share

• Privacy Policy

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Clinical Hypotheses in Diagnostic and Prognostic Reasoning

• First Online: 02 October 2020

Cite this chapter

• Daniele Chiffi 8  

Part of the book series: Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics ((SAPERE,volume 58))

566 Accesses

Patients are interested in receiving accurate diagnostic and prognostic information. While models and reasoning about diagnoses have been extensively investigated from a foundational perspective, prognosis yet needs to receive a comparable degree of philosophical and methodological attention, which may be due to the difficulties inherent in accurate prognostics. In the light of these considerations, I discuss a substantial body of critical thinking on the topic of prognostication and its strict relations with diagnostic reasoning, starting from the distinction between nosographic and pathophysiological types of diagnosis and prognosis. I then identify various forms of hypothetical reasoning that can be applied to reach diagnostic and prognostic judgments, comparing them with specific forms of abductive reasoning. The main thesis is that creative abduction regarding clinical hypotheses in diagnostic process is very unlikely to occur (though still possible), whereas this seems to be often the case for prognostic judgments. The reasons behind this distinction are based on the different types of uncertainty involved in diagnostic and prognostic judgments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

A notable exception concerns the publications promoted by the PROGnosis RESearch Strategy (PROGRESS) Partnership on topics such as fundamental prognosis, prognostic factors, prognostic models and stratified medicine research https://progress-partnership.org/ . The first of these publications provides an overview of the benefits of research on prognosis (Hemingway et al. 2013 ), like the fact that prognostic research may contribute to the generalizability of the results of clinical trials for specific populations.

For an analytic discussion of the crucial role of expert opinions for clinical knowledge, see Tonelli ( 1999 ).

Optimistic bias is seen, for instance, in the prognostication of terminally-ill patients (Christakis et al. 2000 ).

The identification of the reference class in a probabilistic explanation has been extensively analysed; see Hempel ( 1958 ) and Salmon ( 1970 ).

On the distinction between the “cascade model” (that, in the clinical setting, can be seen as coinciding with the “classical biomedical model”) and the “emergentist model” of knowledge translation, see Carrier ( 2010 ). For an analysis of the implications of the classical biomedical model, see Kirkengen et al. ( 2015 ).

For instance, this is the case for the diagnosis of “Patient 1” of Covid19 in Italy. In this regard, see Chap.  1 and the Appendix of this book.

On the logical reconstruction of some key features of diagnoses, see Chiffi and Zanotti ( 2015 ).

Of course, the selection of the categories within a taxonomy may or may not be guided by causes or explanations.

A syndromic complex is the association of patient’s signs and symptoms with a cluster of diagnostic hypotheses (Federspil and Vettor 1999 ).

Other explanatory models are available, e.g. statistical deductive models, mechanistic ones, etc. We do not discuss all the main features of such models here because we are only interested in their role in diagnostic and prognostic reasoning.

On the notion of clinical possibility, see Chiffi and Zanotti ( 2016 ).

It is worth noting that the ‘anticipatory’ dimension of medicine is increasingly based on genetic research, and is associated not only with epistemic, but also with ethical and cultural aspects.

When a prognosis is very poor, physicians may prefer not to inform their patients. Physicians tend to consider such a prognosis as a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is usually believed to occur in association with clinical treatments or placebo (or nocebo) effects (Christakis 1999 ; Rich 2002 ). A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction which induces a person believing in it to behave in such a way that makes it ultimately come true. In the case of prognostics, the core idea is that being informed of a poor prognosis can have a negative effect on a patient’s future health. The impression that this might play a part in the relations between physician and patient is questionable in such a multi-agent context as the clinical one, however. Seen from Lewis’s perspective (Lewis 1975 ), in a multi-agent context, self-fulfilling beliefs require higher-order beliefs to justify them, combined with higher beliefs (or ideally common knowledge) shared by different epistemic agents. Such conditions are typically violated in the sphere of prognostics because of the asymmetry of information between physician and patient (Chiffi and Zanotti 2017 ). Prognostic beliefs can therefore hardly be considered as self-fulfilling, since they occur in a multi-agent context, where there may not exist converging higher beliefs for the patient and the physician. This being the case, physicians’ concerns about communicating a prognosis to patients often seem to be unwarranted.

Individual variability, in terms of patients’ different predisposition to health and disease, was the focus of the research program at the Padua School of Constitutional Medicine organized at the beginning of the twentieth century by Achille De Giovanni. See De Giovanni ( 1909 ).

On Peirce and the notion of abduction, see Paavola ( 2005 ) and Pietarinen and Bellucci ( 2014 ). As masterfully acknowledged by Woods ( 2013 ), Peirce’s “important ideas” on abduction are the following: ( P0 ) Abduction is triggered by surprise. ( P1 ) Abduction is a form of guessing. Since we are rather remarkably good at guessing, it can only be supposed that we are likewise rather good at abducing. ( P2 ) A successful abduction provides no grounds for believing the abduced proposition to be true. ( P3 ) Rather than believing them, the proper thing to do with abduced hypotheses is to send them off to experimental trial (CP 5.599, 6.469–6.473, 7.202–219). ( P4 ) The connection between the truth of the abduced hypothesis and the observed fact is subjunctive (CP 5.189). ( P5 ) The inference that the abduction licenses is not to the proposition H, but rather that H’s truth is something that might plausibly be conjectured (CP 5.189). ( P6 ) The “hence” of the Peircean conclusion is ventured defeasibly (CP 5.189). See Peirce ( 1931 ). Peirce’s seminal intuitions are the guiding ideas of the Gabbay-Woods (GW) schema of abduction (Gabbay and Woods 2006 ). A pragmatic interpretation and a semi-formalization of this schema have been provided in Chiffi and Pietarinen ( 2020a , b ). The GW schema was introduced as a refinement of the AKM model of abduction. In the acronym AKM, A refers to Aliseda ( 1998 , 2005 ), K to Kowalski ( 1979 ), Kuipers ( 1999 ), and Kakas et al. ( 1992 ), M to Magnani ( 2009 ) and Meheus et al. ( 2002 ). In Magnani ( 2009 ) it is also presented his eco-cognitive model of abduction. For an analysis of Magnani’s views on abduction, see Park ( 2017 ).

Since testing hypotheses is time, energy and money consuming, Peirce proposed a methodology called “economy of research” in order to evaluate different research proposal based on their costs and potential benefits. See Chiffi et al. ( 2020 ).

In nursing, abduction should serve in this function of selecting hypothesis-candidates with a view to improving health care paths. In fact, there is no precise and codified scientific framework for nursing knowledge, contrary to what happens in medical diagnostics, which is based on the methods and results of many different sciences. Some possible limitations of abductive reasoning applied to nursing, like those presented in Råholm ( 2010 ) for instance, are investigated by Lipscomb ( 2012 ).

For a critical analysis of the forms of induction, deduction and abduction in clinical reasoning, see Festa et al. ( 2009 ).

For an interesting historical application of abduction to Akkadian medical diagnosis, see Barés Gómez ( 2018 ).

As stated before, prognostic hypotheses regard future health conditions. Hypotheses on infinite or unsurveyable domains, as the one given by future times, express sentences not in principle decidable (Dummett 1976 ). In virtues of this, prognostic hypotheses are extremely difficult to be tested and codified. On the contrary, since diagnostic hypotheses involve a present health condition, they might be decidable, at least in line of principle.

Of course, also non-epistemic aspects of clinical reasoning such as ethical and social values play a non-secondary role in shaping the clinical context (Risjord 2011 ).

Aliseda, A.: Seeking Explanations: Abduction in Logic Philosophy of Science and Artificial Intelligence. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1998)

Google Scholar  

Aliseda, A.: The logic of abduction in the light of Peirce’s pragmatism. Semiotica 153 (1/4), 363–374 (2005)

Anderson, D.R.: The evolution of Peirce’s concept of abduction. Trans. Charles S. Peirce Soc. 22 (2), 145–164 (1986)

Austoni, M., Federspil, G.: Principi di metodologia clinica. Cedam, Padova (1975)

Barés Gómez, C.: Abduction in Akkadian medical diagnosis. J. Appl. Logics IfCoLog J. Logics Appl. 5 (8), 1697–1722 (2018)

Barosi, G., Magnani, L., Stefanelli, M.: Medical diagnostic reasoning: epistemological modeling as a strategy for design of computer-based consultation programs. Theoret. Med. 14 , 43–65 (1983)

Bieganski, W.: The logic of medicine or the critique of medical knowledge. In: Löwy, I. (ed.) The Polish School of Philosophy of Medicine. From Tytus Chalubinski (1820–1889) to Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961), pp. 112–120. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1990, original text 1908)

Bissessur, S.W., Geijteman, E.C.T., Al-Dulaimy, M., Teunissen, P.W., Richir, M.C., Arnold, A.E.R., de Vries, T.P.G.M.: Therapeutic reasoning: from hiatus to hypothetical model. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 15 , 985–989 (2009)

Carnap, R.: Logical Foundations of Probability. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1950)

Carrier, M.: Theories for use: on the bearing of basic science on practical problems. In: Suárez, M., Dorato, M., Rédei, M. (eds.) EPSA. Epistemology and Methodology of Science. Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 23–33. Springer, Dordrecht (2010)

Chiffi, D., Pietarinen, A.V.: Abduction within a pragmatic framework. Synthese 197 (6), 2507–2523 (2020a)

Chiffi, D., Pietarinen, A.-V.: The extended Gabbay-Woods schema and scientific practices. In: Gabbay, D., Magnani, L., Park, W., Pietarinen, A.-V. (eds.) Natural Arguments. A Tribute to John Woods. College Publications, London (2020b)

Chiffi, D., Zanotti, R.: Medical and nursing diagnoses: a critical comparison. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 21 (1), 1–6 (2015)

Chiffi, D., Zanotti, R.: Perspectives on clinical possibility: elements of analysis. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 22 (4), 509–514 (2016)

Chiffi, D., Zanotti, R.: Knowledge and belief in placebo effect. J. Med. Philos. 42 (1), 70–85 (2017)

Chiffi, D., Pietarinen, A.V., Proover, M.: Anticipation, abduction and the economy of research: the normative stance. Futures 115 , 102471 (2020)

Christakis, N.A.: Prognostication and bioethics. Daedalus 128 (4), 197–214 (1999)

Christakis, N.A., Sachs, G.A.: The role of prognosis in clinical decision-making. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 11 (7), 422–425 (1996)

Christakis, N.A., Smith, J.L., Parkes, C.M., Lamont, E.B.: Extent and determinants of error in doctors’ prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ 320 (7233), 469–473 (2000)

De Giovanni, A.: The Morphology of the Human Body. Rebman Limited, London (1909)

Del Mar, C., Doust, J., Glasziou, P.P.: Clinical Thinking: Evidence, Communication and Decision Making. Wiley, Malden, Massachusetts (2008)

Djulbegovic, B., Hozo, I., Greenland, S.: Uncertainty in clinical medicine. In: Gifford, F. (ed.) Philosophy of Medicine. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 16, pp. 299–356. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2011)

Douven, I.: Abduction. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/index.html (2011). Accessed 20 July 2020

Duhem, P.: The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1991)

Dummett, M.: What is a theory of meaning? (II). In: Evans, G., McDowell, J. (eds) Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics, pp. 67–137. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1976)

Federspil, G.: Logica Clinica. McGraw-Hill, Milan (2004)

Federspil, G., Vettor, R.: Clinical and laboratory logic. Clin. Chim. Acta 280 (1), 25–34 (1999)

Feinstein, A.R.: Clinical Biostatistics. Mosby, St. Louis (1977)

Festa, R., Crupi, V., Giaretta, P.: Deduzione, induzione e abduzione nelle scienze mediche. Logic Philos. Sci. 7 (1), 41–68 (2009)

Frankfurt, H.: Peirce’s notion of abduction. J. Philos. 55 , 593–596 (1958)

Article   Google Scholar  

Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: Advice on abductive logic. Logic J. IGPL 14 (2), 189–219 (2006)

Gould, S.J.: The median isn’t the message. In: CancerGuide: Statistics. https://cancerguide.org/median_not_msg.html (2002). Accessed 20 July 2020

Hemingway, H., Croft, P., Perel, P., Hayden, J.A., Abrams, K., Timmis, A., Schroter, S., Altman, D.G., Riley, R.D., PROGRESS Group: Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ 346 , e5595 (2013)

Hempel, C.G.: The theoretician’s dilemma. In: Feigl, H., Scriven, M., Maxwell, G. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, pp. 37–98. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1958)

Hempel, C.G.: Explanation in science and history. In: Colodny, R.C. (ed.) Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, pp. 9–19. The University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1962)

Hempel, C.G.: Science and human values. In: Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 81–96. The Free Press, New York (1965)

Hilden, J., Habbema, J.D.F.: Prognosis in medicine: an analysis of its meaning and roles. Theoret. Med. 8 (3), 349–365 (1987)

Kakas, A., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming. J. Log. Comput. 2 (6), 719–770 (1992)

Keynes, J.M.: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi (2008, originally published in 1936)

Kirkengen, A.L., Ekeland, T.J., Getz, L., Hetlevik, I., Schei, E., Ulvestad, E., Vetlesen, A.J.: Medicine’s perception of reality—a split picture: critical reflections on apparent anomalies within the biomedical theory of science. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 22 (4), 496–501 (2015)

Kowalski, R.A.: Logic for Problem Solving. Elsevier, New York (1979)

Kuipers, T.A.F.: Abduction aiming at empirical progress of even truth approximation leading to a challenge for computational modelling. Found. Sci. 4 (3), 307–323 (1999)

Lewis, D.: Language and languages. In: Gunderson, K. (ed.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VII, pp. 3–35. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1975)

Lipscomb, M.: Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nurs. Philos. 13 (4), 244–256 (2012)

Ma, M., Pietarinen, A.V.: Let us investigate! Dynamic conjecture-making as the formal logic of abduction. J. Philos. Logic 47 (6), 913–945 (2018)

Magnani, L.: Basic science reasoning and clinical reasoning intertwined: epistemological analysis and consequences for medical education. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2 (2), 115–130 (1997)

Magnani, L.: Abduction, Reason and Science. Springer, Dordrecht (2001)

Magnani, L.: Abductive Cognition. The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg (2009)

Meheus, J., Verhoeven, L., Van Dyck, M., Provijn, D.: Ampliative adaptive logics and the foundation of logic-based approaches to abduction. In: Magnani, L., Nersessian, N.J., Pizzi, C. (eds.) Logical and Computational Aspects of Model-Based Reasoning, pp. 39–71. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

Miettinen, O.S.: Epidemiological Research: Terms and Concepts. Springer, Dordrecht (2011)

Miettinen, O.S., Flegel, K.M.: Elementary concepts of medicine: VIII. Knowing about a client’s health: gnosis. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 9(3), 333–335 (2003)

Murri, A.: Quattro lezioni e una perizia. Il problema del metodo in medicina e biologia. Zanichelli, Bologna (1972)

Paavola, S.: Peircean abduction: instinct or inference? Semiotica 153 (1/4), 131–154 (2005)

Park, W.: Abduction in Context: The Conjectural Dynamics of Scientific Reasoning. Springer, Dordrecht (2017)

Peirce, C.S.: Collected Papers, vol. V. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1931). Cited as CP followed by volume and paragraph number

Pietarinen, A.V., Bellucci, F.: New light on Peirce’s conceptions of retroduction, deduction, and scientific reasoning. Int. Stud. Philos. Sci. 28 (4), 353–373 (2014)

Råholm, M.B.: Abductive reasoning and the formation of scientific knowledge within nursing research. Nurs. Philos. 11 (4), 260–270 (2010)

Ramoni, M., Stefanelli, M., Magnani, L., Barosi, G.: An epistemological framework for medical knowledge-based systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 22 , 1361–1375 (1992)

Rich, B.A.: Defining and delineating a duty to prognosticate. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 22 (3), 177–192 (2001)

Rich, B.A.: Prognostication in clinical medicine: prophecy or professional responsibility? J. Leg. Med. 23 (3), 297–358 (2002)

Risjord, M.: Nursing Knowledge: Science, Practice, and Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (2011)

Rizzi, D.A.: Medical prognosis—some fundamentals. Theoret. Med. 14 (4), 365–375 (1993)

Sadegh-Zadeh, K.: Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

Salmon, W.C.: Statistical explanation. In: Colodny, R.G. (ed.) The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, pp. 173–231. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland (1970)

Smith, A.K., White, D.B., Arnold, R.M.: Uncertainty: the other side of prognosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 368 (26), 2448–2450 (2013)

Stanley, D.E., Campos, D.G.: The logic of medical diagnosis. Perspect. Biol. Med. 56 (2), 300–315 (2013)

Stanley, D.E., Campos, D.G.: Selecting clinical diagnoses: logical strategies informed by experience. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 22 (4), 588–597 (2016)

Thagard, P.: Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)

Thagard, P.: Abductive inference: from philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In: Feeney, A., Heit, E. (eds.) Inductive Reasoning: Cognitive, Mathematical, and Neuroscientific Approaches, pp. 226–247. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)

Thorne, S., Sawatzky, R.: Particularizing the general: sustaining theoretical integrity in the context of an evidence-based practice agenda. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 37 (1), 5–18 (2014)

Tonelli, M.R.: In defense of expert opinion. Acad. Med. 74 (11), 1187–1192 (1999)

Upshur, R.: Certainty, probability and abduction: why we should look to CS Peirce rather than Gödel for a theory of clinical reasoning. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 3 (3), 201–206 (1997)

Walton, D.: Abductive Reasoning. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa (2004)

Wiesemann, C.: The significance of prognosis for a theory of medical practice. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 19 (3), 253–261 (1998)

Woods, J.: Errors of Reasoning. Naturalizing the Logic of Inference. College Publications, London (2013)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Daniele Chiffi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele Chiffi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Chiffi, D. (2021). Clinical Hypotheses in Diagnostic and Prognostic Reasoning. In: Clinical Reasoning: Knowledge, Uncertainty, and Values in Health Care. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 58. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59094-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59094-9_4

Published : 02 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-59093-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-59094-9

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.36(50); 2021 Dec 27

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Durga prasanna misra.

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.

Olena Zimba

3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Vikas Agarwal

George d. kitas.

5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Graphical Abstract

DEFINING WORKING AND STANDALONE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2

Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4

Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DO WE NEED HYPOTHESES FOR ALL STUDY DESIGNS?

Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5

Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.

Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8

In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.

STANDARDS OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.

Evidence-based data

A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7

Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.

Supported by pilot studies

If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.

Testable by ethical studies

The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.

Balance between scientific temper and controversy

Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18

DISTINGUISHING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HYPOTHESES

Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20

Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HYPOTHESES AMIDST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36

Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39

IS TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW EFFICIENT FOR EVALUATION OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES?

Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44

Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.

SUGGESTIONS ON GENERATING AND PUBLISHING HYPOTHESES

Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.

Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Data curation: Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Agarwal V, Kitas GD.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of hypothesis

Did you know.

The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

• proposition
• supposition

hypothesis , theory , law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.

law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions.

Examples of hypothesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'hypothesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do

1641, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

Phrases Containing hypothesis

• counter - hypothesis
• nebular hypothesis
• null hypothesis
• planetesimal hypothesis
• Whorfian hypothesis

Articles Related to hypothesis

This is the Difference Between a...

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things

Dictionary Entries Near hypothesis

hypothermia

hypothesize

Cite this Entry

“Hypothesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis. Accessed 28 Apr. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of hypothesis, medical definition, medical definition of hypothesis, more from merriam-webster on hypothesis.

Nglish: Translation of hypothesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of hypothesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about hypothesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 26, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, your favorite band is in the dictionary, games & quizzes.

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Related Content

Related overviews.

hypothetico-deductive method

See all related overviews in Oxford Reference »

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

• Life Sciences

Quick Reference

A statement of the expected relationship between things being studied, which is intended to explain certain facts or observations. An idea to be tested.

From:   hypothesis   in  A Dictionary of Environment and Conservation »

Subjects: Science and technology — Life Sciences

Related content in Oxford Reference

Reference entries.

View all reference entries »

View all related items in Oxford Reference »

Search for: 'hypothesis' in Oxford Reference »

• Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 29 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500