DxDetective reasoning practice
Case pages help people compare clues, separate evidence from assumptions, and decide what to check next. They are educational scenarios, not individualized health analysis or medical advice.
Browse spoiler-safe casesIndividualized evidence
Individualized evidence for correlation and causation.
Murtek Foundation's primary focus is individualized evidence gathering: repeated observations about a person's health, behavior, environment, actions, and outcomes over time. The long-term goal is to identify meaningful correlations and, when repeated comparisons, interventions, confounder review, and replication provide strong enough evidence, determine the level of confidence in a causal relationship.
Individual questions
Longitudinal evidence
Self-reported outcomes
Meaningful correlations
Within-person comparisons
Confounder review
Repeated comparisons
Causation confidence
From correlation to causation
Build stronger evidence one stage at a time.
More data alone does not establish cause and effect. The Foundation's approach separates observation, timing, planned comparisons, intervention evidence, and replication so people can see why confidence changes and what other explanations remain.
-
Start with the individual's question
Evidence is useful when it begins with an outcome that matters to the person. The approach connects self-reported observations with behavior, environment, timing, and other context without assuming everyone responds the same way.
-
Gather longitudinal, real-world observations
Patterns and changes emerge from repeated measures over time, not a single snapshot. Each observation should keep its date, source, unit, and context so later comparisons remain trustworthy.
-
Treat correlation as a starting point
An association can show which signals move together and which questions deserve attention. It does not, by itself, show that one thing caused another.
-
Look at timing and direction
Comparing what changes first can help test whether a proposed influence occurs before an outcome and whether the pattern remains stable across different periods.
-
Compare deliberate changes
When it is appropriate and safe, a planned within-person comparison or recorded intervention can provide stronger evidence than passive tracking alone. The change and outcome must be defined before the result is interpreted.
-
Review confounders and other explanations
Sleep, season, routine changes, measurement error, or a third factor may explain a pattern. Those alternatives must be considered before confidence increases.
-
Require replication before stronger conclusions
A result becomes stronger when it appears across repeated observations or distinct planned changes. One attractive correlation or one successful change is not enough to support a causal relationship.
-
Keep evidence explainable, private, and bounded
People should be able to see what was measured, why the evidence changed, and what remains uncertain. Health-facing conclusions stay non-diagnostic, and personal data stays within explicit privacy and sharing boundaries.
Current public work
See how Murtek handles evidence and trust today.
These public experiences demonstrate reasoning and trust boundaries. They do not analyze a visitor's health data or produce individualized causal findings.
Site security and privacy boundaries
The Site Security page gives people a direct reporting path and explains current privacy and security boundaries without exposing controls that could make the site less safe.
Review site security