I understand that these relations are based on some sort of notion of "evidence" via scientific studies. My question would be - there seems to be a rather low amount of studies per relation in most cases, how is the specific study that establishes a relation here chosen? In reality, in many fields we often see completely contradictory studies, e.g. in psychology or nutrition.
Is there really just one study about this? What would happen if there was one study saying that there is such a relationship, and one saying there isn't?
To me it seems that this kind of system leads to a weird simplified spaghetti view of the world, which at best might be an ok topic explorer, but at worst almost like a conspiracy theory automator (following the threads of more or less representative studies of things being "related").
Example: I saw there is a relationship between "rural area" and "major depressive disorders", "established by 1 source": https://www.system.com/view/topic-relationship/wdlsYqXAGFc/j...
Is there really just one study about this? What would happen if there was one study saying that there is such a relationship, and one saying there isn't?
To me it seems that this kind of system leads to a weird simplified spaghetti view of the world, which at best might be an ok topic explorer, but at worst almost like a conspiracy theory automator (following the threads of more or less representative studies of things being "related").