Why so much medical research is rot:
People born under the astrological sign of Leo are 15% more likely to be admitted to hospital with gastric bleeding than those born under the other 11 signs. Sagittarians are 38% more likely than others to land up there because of a broken arm. Those are the conclusions that many medical researchers would be forced to make from a set of data presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science by Peter Austin of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto. At least, they would be forced to draw them if they applied the lax statistical methods of their own work to the records of hospital admissions in Ontario, Canada, used by Dr Austin.
Dr Austin, of course, does not draw those conclusions. His point was to shock medical researchers into using better statistics, because the ones they routinely employ today run the risk of identifying relationships when, in fact, there are none. He also wanted to explain why so many health claims that look important when they are first made are not substantiated in later studies.
As I said in, Seeing Patterns Where None Exists: “Page 8 of Statistics for Experimenters by George Box, William Hunter (my father) and Stu Hunter (no relation) shows a graph of the population (of people) versus the number of storks which shows a high correlation. “Although in this example few would be led to hypothesize that the increase in the number of storks caused the observed increase in population, investigators are sometimes guilty of this kind of mistake in other contexts.’”
January 1st, 2009 at 8:31 am
[...] Correlation is not causation. And reporting of the form, “1 time this happened” and so I report it as though it is some relevant fact, is sad. Take any incident that happened and then state random traits you want to imply there is some relevant link to (blue eyes, red hair, people that watch IT Crowd, people that bought a banana yesterday, tall, overweight, did poorly in math…) and most people will know you are ignorant. [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 10:25 am
[...] Statistics for Experimenters Review – Correlation is Not Causation – Statistics for Experimenters Data – posts on design of experiments by John Hunter [...]
March 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
[...] Correlation is Not Causation – Does the Data Deluge Make the Scientific Method Obsolete? – Understanding Data – Theory of [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Your article is interesting. Correlation is not causation. And reporting of the form, “1 time this happened” and so I report it as though it is some relevant fact, is sad. Take any incident that happened and then state random traits you want to imply there is some relevant link to (blue eyes, red hair, people that watch IT Crowd, people that bought a banana yesterday, tall, overweight…
September 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
[...] Edward Tufte’s: Beautiful Evidence – Simpson’s Paradox – Correlation is Not Causation – Seeing Patterns Where None Exists – Great Charts – Playing Dice and Children’s Numeracy – [...]