Abhaya Indrayan writes below:
>I am writing this to allstat (in place of only to Allan) to generate a
> broader discussion.
But the only sight of any such discussion will be what Allan summarises back
to Allstat, even where substantial discussion has taken place off
list........where noone sees it.
MedStats is a group created because of this. It encourages discussion
visible to all, in which all members can participate. The question raised by
Allan and extended by Abhaya would sit well within this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/MedStats
Best Wishes,
Martin Holt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abhaya Indrayan" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: What is a "major risk factor"?
> Allan seems to be raising a fundamental question on terms that
> qualitatively
> grade a continuum. What is hypertension, by the way? Is it BP more than
> 130/80, more than 140/90 or more than 160/95 mmHg? There is a lot of
> discussion on this and a consensus seems to have emerged, possibly because
> a
> metric measurement is available in this case. Unfortunately, such wide
> discussion has not been held for 'major' risk factor, nor a metric
> measurement is available. I am not aware if anybody has precisely defined
> what is 'mild' pain and what is 'severe' pain, or what is 'excellent'
> health opposed to 'good' health. They are so subjective. Epistemic
> uncertainties dominate in such terms. Remember Kelvin's dictum? Metric
> measurement still eludes many continuous variables. Until such time that a
> satisfactory metric is developed, we are forced to use such imprecise
> terms.
>
> I am writing this to allstat (in place of only to Allan) to generate a
> broader discussion.
>
> ~Abhaya Indrayan
> Website: www.geocities.com/aindrayan
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Allan Reese (Cefas) <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I was asked to comment on a paper whose title claimed a "major risk
>> factor" for a cancer. This looks like another candidate for phrases
>> likely to mislead the public. Would it imply, to you, that the factor
>> just had a larger effect than other factors studied or that it had a
>> substantial impact with health policy implications? Does a "major
>> factor" imply an odds ratio greater than some threshold? Is there a
>> particular definition within the medical literature, or is this
>> sensationalism parading as science?
>>
>> As usual, please follow allstat conventions and comment to me. I'll
>> summarize.
>>
>> Allan
>>
>> R Allan Reese
>> Senior statistician, Cefas
>> The Nothe, Weymouth DT4 8UB
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0)1305 206614 -direct
>> Fax: +44 (0)1305 206601
>>
>> www.cefas.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are intended for the named recipient only.
>> Its unauthorised use, distribution, disclosure, storage or copying is
>> not
>> permitted. If you have received it in error, please destroy all copies
>> and
>> notify the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views and
>> opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
>> those
>> of the organisation from which it is sent. All emails may be subject to
>> monitoring.
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>>
>
>
|