←back to thread

275 points rntn | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dynm ◴[] No.45158964[source]
This article repeats the common mistake of conflating correlations and causality. The main results are (1) that PM2.5 exposure is correlated with dementia in humans, (2) some experimental results with mice. This does not establish causality in humans. The paper is careful to stay juuuust on the right side of the line by carefully using "associated" in the right places. But the press release discards that pretense at rigor and jumps straight to full-on claims of causality in people:

> Long-term exposure accelerates the development of Lewy body dementia and Parkinson’s disease with dementia in people who are predisposed to the conditions.

I think it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that this is true. But the paper does not show it.

replies(7): >>45159286 #>>45159316 #>>45160008 #>>45160027 #>>45160407 #>>45161004 #>>45161379 #
bitmasher9 ◴[] No.45159286[source]
Why is this brought up here every time an association article is mentioned, every undergraduate that took a statistics course has covered the difference between correlation and causation.

We do population level correlation studies because sometimes a double blind study is unethical, and double blind studies is the bar for establishing causation in the medical community. We cannot give one person randomly worse air to breath, and even if it were experimentally feasible it would be ethically impossible because there is strong suspicion we would be harming the subjects.

Let’s discuss the actual data. The dose dependent result that was found is an indicator of a strong relationship. There is a clear potential mechanism of action (Air -> Lungs -> Bloodstream -> Brain). This isn’t a controversial result in the literature, it’s more evidence for what we already know —- air pollution is very bad.

replies(2): >>45159373 #>>45160818 #
dynm ◴[] No.45159373[source]
You seem to be responding as if I claimed that population-level correlational studies are bad, or that I claimed that air pollution is not bad for you. But I did not claim either of those things.

What I claimed is that this press release takes a population-level correlational study and presents it in a misleading way that implies causation was established. Which this press release most certainly does.

replies(1): >>45160137 #
1. bitmasher9 ◴[] No.45160137[source]
The correlation != causation argument at large is usually a sophomoric dismal of valuable data, and I’d rather see discussion on the data or specifics to research methodology then this meta criticism.

Ultimately both exaggerating pop-sci articles and dismissive comments are contributing to public distrust of science.

replies(2): >>45160398 #>>45160496 #
2. dpkirchner ◴[] No.45160398[source]
Maybe the thought-terminating cliche should be posted as a comment by a bot at the top of every submission so there's a home for this sort of complaint.
3. ◴[] No.45160496[source]