Placing epidemiological results in the context of multiplicity and typical correlations of exposures
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11177710 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chirag J Patel (0000-0002-8756-8525, Harvard Medical School), John P A Ioannidis (0000-0003-3118-6859, Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford, California, USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 68 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Pages | 1096-1100 |
| Publication date | 2014-11-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0143-005X • E-ISSN: 1470-2738 |
| Publisher | BMJ (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1136/jech-2014-204195 |
| PMID | 24923805 |
| OpenAlex | W2015703383 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 39 |
Epidemiological studies evaluate multiple exposures, but the extent of multiplicity often remains non-transparent when results are reported. There is extensive debate in the literature on whether multiplicity should be adjusted for in the design, analysis, and reporting of most epidemiological studies, and, if so, how this should be done. The challenges become more acute in an era where the number of exposures that can be studied (the exposome ) can be very large. Here, we argue that it can be very insightful to visualize and describe the extent of multiplicity by reporting the number of effective exposures for each category of exposures being assessed, and to describe the distribution of correlation between exposures and/or between exposures and outcomes in epidemiological datasets. The results of new proposed associations can be placed in the context of this background information. An association can be assigned to a percentile of magnitude of effect based on the distribution of effects seen in the field. We offer an example of how such information can be routinely presented in an epidemiological study/dataset using data on 530 exposure and demographic variables classified in 32 categories in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Effects that survive multiplicity considerations and that are large may be prioritized for further scrutiny
Context (archaeology) · Environmental health · Geography · Mathematical analysis · Multiplicity (mathematics) · Pathology · Statistics · Air Quality and Health Impacts · Epidemiology · Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging · Mathematics · Medicine · Nutritional Studies and Diet
Associations of Preconception Exposure to Air Pollution and Greenness with Offspring Asthma and Hay Fever
Multiplicity Eludes Peer Review
The Public Health Exposome
Social influence of adult children on parental health behavior among South Asian immigrants
The risk of chemical cocktail effects and how to deal with the issue
Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated
No Adjustments Are Needed for Multiple Comparisons
Causal Knowledge as a Prerequisite for Confounding Evaluation
Grade
Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus
Sifting the evidence---what's wrong with significance tests? Another comment on the role of statistical methods
Reproducibility and Validity of a Semiquantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire
Controlling the False Discovery Rate
Antifragile
| Citations per year | 0.42 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2014 - 2021 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |