[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Re: Cohen's Fallacy
Exactly, Tom!
We are not using medicine (radiation) for demonstrated need (error of the "second kind") because of largely unfounded fears of
harm from use (which would be error of the "first kind").
Howard Long
Thomas J Savin wrote:
> Apologies galore - its just that I did not receive my message from radsafe - so I am sending it out again. I think my message speaks for itself. There is definitely a point for which I address.
> ---
> Tom Savin
>
> --------- Forwarded Message ---------
>
> DATE: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:06:55
> From: "Thomas J Savin " <tjsav@lycos.com>
> To: "Rad health" <healthrad@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> It seems to me that some of this scientific debate is concerned with Type I and type II errors. In other words, does one subscribe statistically to whether or not they are biased to avoid a false positive vs a false negative result. Which camp do they support? Any Comments? Tom
> ---
> Tom Savin
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:21:20
> Rad health wrote:
> >After reading the epidemiologic technique in the paper Dr. Field suggested
> >to Dr. Cohen, I think it could possibly help to correct the problem with
> >Cohen's analyses pointed out here by Doll and Darby. This is the same
> >problem Field pointed out previously of the radon varying more within county
> >than between counties. The variance of smoking within county co-correlates
> >with other factors that Cohen has not been able to treat at the within
> >county level.
> >
> >Don
> >
> >J. Radiol. Prot. 20 (June 2000) 221-222
> >
> >LETTER TO THE EDITOR
> >
> >Reply to `Explaining the lung cancer versus radon exposure data for USA
> >counties'
> >
> >Sarah Darby and Richard Doll
> >Clinical Trial Service Unit, University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of
> >Clinical Medicine, Harkness Building, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE,
> >UK
> >
> >Professor Cohen states in his letter that his analysis `encompasses all of
> >the Doll suggestions'. It is, however, logically impossible for it to have
> >done so using data at the level of counties. This is because the effect of
> >cigarette smoking on the relationship between residential radon and
> >individual lung cancer risk will be determined by the relationship between
> >smoking status and lung cancer among the individuals within each county.
> >Unless smoking is irrelevant to lung cancer risk (which we know to be
> >untrue) or smoking status and residential radon are uncorrelated within each
> >county (which seems unlikely), the relationship between residential radon
> >and lung cancer at the county level will differ from that at the level of
> >the individual in a way that cannot be overcome by including corrections for
> >smoking habits at the county level, even if these corrections correctly
> >represent the smoking habits of the individuals within each county. The
> >difference in the relationship between a risk factor and a disease rate at
> >the level of the individual and at an area level is the ecologic fallacy and
> >is described in detail by Greenland and Robins (1994) and Morgenstern
> >(1998). Lubin (1998) has also demonstrated that biases caused by the
> >ecologic fallacy can be of any magnitude from minus infinity to plus
> >infinity.
> >
> >In two recent studies (Lagarde and Pershagen 1999, Darby et al 2000),
> >parallel individual and ecological analyses have been carried out of
> >identical data from case-control studies of residential radon (Peshagen et
> >al 1994, Darby et al 1998). These analyses have shown that, in addition to
> >any bias caused by the ecological fallacy, ecological studies of residential
> >radon and lung cancer are also prone to biases caused by determinants of
> >lung cancer risk that vary at the level of the ecological unit concerned. In
> >these two examples, the additional variables were latitude and urban/rural
> >status respectively. The explanation of these variables is not yet well
> >understood and they may well be, in part, surrogate measures for some
> >aspects of the subjects' smoking history not accounted for by the measures
> >of smoking status that have been derived from the individual questionnaire
> >data and used in the analysis of the data for individuals. They had only a
> >minor effect on analysis at this level but a substantial effect on the
> >ecological analyses. The presence of these variables is further evidence of
> >the pitfalls of ecological studies.
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> >send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> >radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
> >
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/