Correlation and causation: a comment.

Stephen Stigler

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15842089

Correlation and causation: a comment.

Stephen Stigler

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Some purely methodological comments are made on the pitfalls and difficulties in making causal inferences from observational data, including in studies of disparity in medicine. The ideas of spurious correlation and measurement error are discussed with an eye towards their impact upon inferences about causality, and cautions are offered about over-reliance upon testing hypotheses.

Explore related subjects

Bias Causality Health Services Research Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Stephen Stigler. 2005. Correlation and causation: a comment.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15842089/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

PubMed2007

Improving point predictions of random effects for subjects at high risk.

The prediction of random effects corresponding to subject-specific characteristics (e.g. means or rates of change) can be very useful in medical and epidemiologic research. At times, one may be most interested in obtaining accurate and/or precise predictions for subjects whose characteristic places them in a tail of the distribution. While the typical posterior mean predictor dominates others in terms of overall mean squared error of prediction (MSEP), its tendency to 'overshrink' has motivated research into alternatives emphasizing other criteria. Here, we specifically target MSEP within a certain region (e.g. above a known cut-off for high risk or a specified percentile of the random effect distribution), and we consider minimizing this quantity with and without constraints on overall MSEP efficiency. We use the normal-theory random intercept model to derive prediction methods with potential to yield markedly better performance for subjects in the specified region, given a well-controlled and (if desired) modest concession of overall MSEP. Criteria geared toward classification as well as overall and regional prediction unbiasedness are also provided. We evaluate the proposed techniques and illustrate them using repeated measures data on fasting blood glucose from type 2 diabetes patients. A simulation study verifies that theoretical properties and relative performances of the proposed predictors are essentially maintained when calculating them in practice based on estimated mixed linear model parameters. Straightforward extensions to incorporate covariates and additional random effects are briefly outlined.

Bias↗

PubMed2007

Incorporating missingness for estimation of marginal regression models with multiple source predictors.

Multiple informant data refers to information obtained from different individuals or sources used to measure the same construct; for example, researchers might collect information regarding child psychopathology from the child's teacher and the child's parent. Frequently, studies with multiple informants have incomplete observations; in some cases the missingness of informants is substantial. We introduce a Maximum Likelihood (ML) technique to fit models with multiple informants as predictors that permits missingness in the predictors as well as the response. We provide closed form solutions when possible and analytically compare the ML technique to the existing Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) approach. We demonstrate that the ML approach can be used to compare the effect of the informants on response without standardizing the data. Simulations incorporating missingness show that ML is more efficient than the existing GEE method. In the presence of MCAR missing data, we find through a simulation study that the ML approach is robust to a relatively extreme departure from the normality assumption. We implement both methods in a study investigating the association between physical activity and obesity with activity measured using multiple informants (children and their mothers).

Bias↗