Re: Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology by Any Other Name..., > Wing: Descriptive Epidemiology by Any Other Name...

["John Moulder" <jmoulder@post.its.mcw.edu>]

See also the formal critique of Wing et al from the authors of the original 
study:

Full critique can be found at:

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1997/105(1)/tempresponse.html

Excerpts from that critique [my comments in brackets]

> ...We find the lengthy piece tendentious and unbalanced...As the 
> findings from the reanalysis differ little from the original study, 
> we will focus our comments on four brief points. 

[This is a very important point, read Wing et al vs Hatch et al, and you will 
see that the numbers are the same.  What differs in in the confidence placed 
in these small excess relative risks and in the interpretations of their 
biological significance]

> First, both our initial views and subsequent conclusions about 
> the possibility of an accident-related cancer increase have 
> been misrepresented... 
>  
> Second, contrary to what Wing et al. (1) claim, we did in 
> fact specifically recommend follow-up of the TMI area population... 
> and such studies are currently under way at the University of 
> Pittsburgh under... 
>  
> Third, the initial assumptions of Wing et al. (1), and the context 
> in which they interpret their results, are based on strictly 
> anecdotal reports... 
>  
> Fourth, the principal difference between our work and that of Wing's 
> team is in the interpretation of results and not in the  
> results themselves. Their replication of our original analysis 
> produced figures identical to ours "within rounding error"... 

[The above is probably the most critical difference between the two studies]

> ...we wish to make some additional corrections or clarifications... 
>  
> - Wing et al mischaracterize the history of our dosimetric model. 
> - There were no court-imposed limitations on our exposure models... 
>  
> - Wing et al. also fail to acknowledge that our use of relative 
> - rather than absolute doses is an approach designed to overcome the 
> - very uncertainties in radiation dosimetry that they cite as 
> - concerns... 
>  
> - In spite of a possible undercount of 1975 cancers, there was no 
> - evidence that this was geographically biased rather than 
> - randomly distributed throughout the study area. Because we 
> - defined exposure to radiation in geographic terms, we saw .no need 
> - to exclude the 1975 data. 

[the above is a very technical point, but an important one]
 
> - Surprisingly, Wing et al. (1) do not seem to have adjusted 
> - their standard errors to reflect the a posteriori nature of 
> - their hypotheses. 

[In other words, when you make your hypothesis after looking at the numbers, 
the concept of statistical significance becomes rather meaningless]

> What leads two groups of epidemiologists to attach different meaning 
> or give different emphasis to essentially the same data is a puzzle 
> that is likely to remain with us for as long as subjectivity plays a 
> role in epidemiology... 
>  
> we urge readers of the critique by Wing et al. (1) and our response 
> to refer to our original publications before reaching a judgment. 

[I would strongly second that.  To really critique Wing et al, you have to 
read the two papers by Hatch et al]

---------------


John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu)
Radiation Biology Group
Medical College of Wisconsin