Key takeaways
- Correlation is a pattern; it doesn’t show cause.
- A mechanism is a possible explanation, often from lab studies.
- Causation in people is best shown by randomised controlled trials.
- Changes in markers don’t guarantee meaningful outcomes.
“Linked to”, “shown to affect”, “works by…” Research language can blur three different ideas. This article separates them.
Correlation
Two things are correlated when they tend to occur together. Observational studies find correlations, for example, between diets and health outcomes. But correlation doesn’t show cause: other factors may explain the link.
Mechanism
A mechanism is a proposed explanation of how something might work, often found in laboratory studies. A plausible mechanism makes an effect possible, not proven. Many mechanisms seen in cells never translate into effects in people. See In Vitro, Animal and Human Studies.
Causation
Causation means changing one thing reliably changes another. The strongest evidence for causation in people comes from well-designed randomised controlled trials, ideally repeated and reviewed together.
Markers versus outcomes
Studies often measure markers, such as levels of something in the blood, rather than outcomes people notice. A change in a marker doesn’t guarantee a meaningful change in health.
Applying this to mushroom research
- Laboratory mechanisms are a starting point, not a conclusion.
- Observational patterns can’t isolate the effect of a mushroom.
- Look for controlled human trials before drawing conclusions.