<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: causation</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'causation'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22causation%22&t=%22causation%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:32:43 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Did They Learn Correlation and Causation in College?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4975828&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FfE42ltbBPEc%2F</link>
            <description>By Neal McCluskeyIt looks like Peter Thiel won&amp;#8217;t be unopposed advising kids to stay out of college
Thanks to a new report from Georgetown University economist Anthony Carnevale, and a David Leonhardt column based on Carnevale&amp;#8217;s study, over the last few days the college-for-all crowd has been striking back. But they seem to have missed something in their own college training: correlation does not equal causation.
Carnevale, Leonhardt, and others&amp;#8217; argument is basically that there are big, positive returns on a college degree. It&amp;#8217;s something, frankly, that&amp;#8217;s not generally in dispute. I say &amp;#8220;generally,&amp;#8221; because while on average college grads make a lot more than people without a degree, there&amp;#8217;s a lot more to the story than averages. Ind...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4975828</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:12:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4975828</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Understanding Research Methodology 2: Systematic Empiricism</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4676871&amp;cid=t_195267_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F04%2F04%2Funderstanding-research-methodology-2-systematic-empiricism%2F</link>
            <description>Scientific research relies on the use of empirical data for acquiring knowledge.  Empiricism means making use of observation and experience.  Science goes beyond the use of the empiricism normally used in everyday life, however.  Scientific research employs systematic empiricism.
Observation itself is necessary in acquiring scientific knowledge, but unstructured observation of the natural world will not lead to an increased understanding of the world.
“Write down every observation you make from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed on a given day. When you finish, you will have a great number of facts, but you will not have a greater understanding of the world.” (Stanovich &amp; Stanovich, 2003, p. 12)

Empiricism becomes systematic empiricism when it is stru...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4676871</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:54:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4676871</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Coffee And Stroke: Another Study The Media Got Wrong</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4592400&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fcoffee-and-stroke-another-study-the-media-got-wrong%2F2011.03.14</link>
            <description>Here we go again. Headlines across America blaring lines like, &amp;#8220;Coffee may reduce stroke risk.&amp;#8221;
It was a big study, but an observational study. Not a trial. Not an experiment. And, as we say so many times on this website that you could almost join along with the chorus, observational studies have inherent limitations that should always be mentioned in stories. They can&amp;#8217;t prove cause and effect. They can show a strong statistical association, but they can&amp;#8217;t prove cause and effect. So you can&amp;#8217;t prove benefit or risk reduction. And stories should say that.
USA Today, for example, did not explain that in its story. Nor did it include any of the limitations that were included in, for example, a HealthDay story, which stated:
&amp;#8220;The problem with this type of stu...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4592400</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:00:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4592400</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Teens Who Smoke Pot: At Risk For Mental Illness Later?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560272&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fteens-who-smoke-pot-at-risk-for-mental-illness-later%2F2011.03.08</link>
            <description>Teenagers and young adults who use marijuana may be messing with their heads in ways they don’t intend.
Evidence is mounting that regular marijuana use increases the chance that a teenager will develop psychosis, a pattern of unusual thoughts or perceptions, such as believing the television is transmitting secret messages. It also increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, a disabling brain disorder that not only causes psychosis, but also problems concentrating and loss of emotional expression.
In one recent study that followed nearly 2,000 teenagers as they became young adults, young people who smoked marijuana at least five times were twice as likely to have developed psychosis over the next 10 years as those who didn’t smoke pot.
Another new paper concluded that early marijuan...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560272</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:00:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560272</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ibuprofen-Parkinson’s Study: Few News Organizations Report On It Accurately</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560273&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fibuprofen-parkinsons-study-few-news-organizations-report-on-it-accurately%2F2011.03.08</link>
            <description>We&amp;#8217;re delighted to see that USA Today, Reuters, and WebMD were among the news organizations that included what an editorial writer said about an observational study linking ibuprofen use with fewer cases of Parkinson&amp;#8217;s disease. All three news organizations used some version of what editorial writer Dr. James Bower of the Mayo Clinic wrote or said:
&amp;#8220;Whenever in epidemiology you find an association, that does not mean causation.&amp;#8221;
&amp;#8220;An association does not prove causation.&amp;#8221;
&amp;#8220;There could be other explanations for the ibuprofen-Parkinson&amp;#8217;s connection.&amp;#8221;
Kudos to those news organizations. And some praise goes to the journal Neurology for publishing Dr. Bower&amp;#8217;s editorial to accompany the study. His piece is entitled, &amp;#8220;Is the answer...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560273</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:00:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560273</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Court Tackles a Hard Case: Implications for ObamaCare?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4060577&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FctNSK_WVbrw%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonThe Supreme Court hears oral argument today in an important pre-emption case, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, which asks whether the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 pre-empts state law “design defect” suits brought against vaccine manufacturers. I&amp;#8217;ve discussed this complex case more fully in an op-ed at the Daily Caller, but in a nutshell, Congress passed the Act to address the risks inherent in vaccinations through a federal no-fault &amp;#8221;Vaccine Court&amp;#8221; rather than through the vagaries of state tort law. It did so because the inability to make vaccines entirely safe, plus uncertainty surrounding causation, coupled with the penchant of state juries to discount those issues in favor of sympathetic plaintiffs, had rendered most manufacturers unwilling...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4060577</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:47:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4060577</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Prevention Magazine’s Inaccurate “Coffee Cures” Story</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3933089&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fprevention-magazines-inaccurate-coffee-cures-story%2F2010.09.03</link>
            <description>The September issue of Prevention magazine inaccurately headlines the story &amp;#8221;4 Ways Coffee Cures.&amp;#8221; There&amp;#8217;s no solid proof that coffee cures anything &amp;#8212; unless some of you cure bacon with java, which I don&amp;#8217;t want to know about.
What the story (below) did was to try to present a cute little graphic summary of observational studies that show a statistical association between increasing coffee consumption and fewer early deaths, fewer deaths from heart attack, fewer cases of dementia, and fewer cases of type 2 diabetes.
But such observational studies (they actually never cite the source &amp;#8212; I&amp;#8217;m just giving them the benefit of the doubt that they&amp;#8217;re citing observational studies) CAN&amp;#8217;T establish cause and effect, therefore it&amp;#8217;s inaccura...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3933089</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:00:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3933089</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Internet Addiction, Depression and Chinese Teens</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3822963&amp;cid=t_195267_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2010%2F08%2F04%2Finternet-addiction-depression-and-chinese-teens%2F</link>
            <description>An interesting new study was published earlier this week about &amp;#8220;Internet addiction.&amp;#8221; Unlike many previous studies on this hypothesized disorder, this one actually took measurements at two different points in time to try and tease out the possibility that &amp;#8220;Internet addiction&amp;#8221; can cause mental health problems, like depression or anxiety.
Can we show that simply using the Internet causes depression? Researchers set to find out on Chinese teens.
Psychologist Lawrence Lam and his colleague studied 1,041 Chinese teens, mostly ages 13 to 16, who had no signs of depression at the onset of the study. Some of the group, however, had moderate to severe pathological use of the Internet (64 of the subjects).

The researchers then assessed all 1,041 teens for depression, anxiety ...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3822963</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:32:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3822963</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health News Consumers Tired Of Misinterpreted Studies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3702936&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealth-news-consumers-tired-of-misinterpreted-studies%2F2010.06.27</link>
            <description>People aren&amp;#8217;t dumb. Even if &amp;#8212; or maybe especially if &amp;#8212; news stories don&amp;#8217;t point out the limitations of observational studies and the fact that they can&amp;#8217;t establish cause-and-effect, many readers seem to get it.
Here are some of the online user comments in response to a CNN.com story that is headlined, &amp;#8220;Coffee may cut risk for some cancers&amp;#8220;:
* &amp;#8220;I love how an article starts with something positive and then slowly becomes a little gloomy. So is it good or not? I&amp;#8217;m still where I was with coffee, it&amp;#8217;s all in moderation, it ain&amp;#8217;t gonna solve your health woes.&amp;#8221;
* &amp;#8220;The statistics book in a class I&amp;#8217;m taking uses coffee as an example of statistics run amuck. It seems coffee has caused all the cancers and cures them ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3702936</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:00:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3702936</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“Short People Got No Reason” To Worry About Higher Heart Risk</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3655588&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fshort-people-got-no-reason-to-worry-about-higher-heart-risk%2F2010.06.11</link>
            <description>&amp;#8220;Short people have higher heart risk&amp;#8221; screams the headline on CNN.com, treating it as a statement of fact. &amp;#8220;Shortness Boosts Heart Disease, Death Risk&amp;#8221; is the headline in a HealthDay story seen on BusinessWeek.com.
Wrong.
Such a study as the one being described can only establish association &amp;#8212; it CANNOT prove causation. So it&amp;#8217;s wrong to say short people have higher risk. It is wrong to say shortness boosts risk.
Blogger and cardiac electrophysiologist Dr. Wes Fisher beat me to the punch by blogging about the continued journalistic confusion between association and causation. He wrote:
&amp;#8220;About the only thing that can be concluded from this so-called &amp;#8220;analysis&amp;#8221; is nothing more than maybe we should consider studying if this association actu...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3655588</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:00:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3655588</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Big Global Warming Case Hinges on Weird Procedural Technicality</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3566603&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FiAghBQTZcm8%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroNearly two weeks ago, I blogged about some strange procedural developments in the big global warming case coming out of the Gulf Coast, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA.  On the eve of final briefing deadlines before the en banc Fifth Circuit, an eighth judge of that court recused from the case (we don&amp;#8217;t know the reason, but the previous seven recusals were presumably due to stock ownership) and so the court was faced with an unprecedented situation: losing an en banc quorum after previously having had enough of one to vacate the panel decision and grant en banc rehearing in the first place.  We were all set to file our brief when the Clerk of the Fifth Circuit issued an order notifying the parties of the lost quorum and canceling the scheduled hearing — and nothing more....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3566603</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 11:09:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3566603</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Of Butterflies, Tsunamis, and Draconian Recusal Standards</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3529764&amp;cid=t_195267_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKfDaa9S6bb4%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroLast October, I blogged about Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, a lawsuit in Mississippi alleging that the defendant oil, coal, utility, and chemical companies emit carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, which exacerbated Hurricane Katrina, which damaged the plaintiffs&amp;#8217; property.  Mass tort litigation specialist Russell Jackson called the case “the litigator’s equivalent to the game ‘Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.’”  In a brief that Cato was due to file this week, I framed the operative question as, &amp;#8220;When a butterfly flaps its wings, can it be sued for the damage any subsequent tsunami causes?&amp;#8221;
The plaintiffs asserted a variety of theories under Mississippi common law, but the main issue at this stage was whether the plaintiffs had standing, or ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3529764</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 12:47:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3529764</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Correlation (even multivariate analysis) is not causation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2727453&amp;cid=t_195267_165_f&amp;fid=37959&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhealthskills.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F08%2F24%2Fcorrelation-even-multivariate-analysis-is-not-causation%2F</link>
            <description>Discussion&amp;#8217; and miss the important details of how the researchers drew those conclusions.  Only then can we decide how much weight we put on the findings.
Jensen, M. (2009). Research on coping with chronic pain: The importance of active avoidance of inappropriate conclusions Pain DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.07.036 (Source: HealthSkills Weblog)</description>
            <author>HealthSkills Weblog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2727453</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:17:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2727453</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Causes Schizophrenia? Maybe Rare Gene Variants</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1668384&amp;cid=t_195267_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F07%2F30%2Fwhat-causes-schizophrenia-maybe-rare-gene-variants%2F</link>
            <description>The New York Times today had a great grounded piece on the state of our knowledge into schizophrenia, a relatively uncommon mental disorder (that gets a lot of attention more because of its severity, not because of its prevalence). The reality is that after hundreds of research studies into the biology and genetics of schizophrenia, all signs point to the fact that schizophrenia may be caused by thousands of rare gene variants. In other words, if you have one of these rare gene variants, you would be at greater risk for the disorder. 
	Of course, the problem with this is that there are only limited ways the pharmaceutical industry can help if this is the case (notwithstanding one of the researchers&amp;#8217; quotes in the article). In fact, if the disorder is caused by thousands of different ...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1668384</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:23:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1668384</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Understanding Brain Imaging</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1437333&amp;cid=t_195267_122_f&amp;fid=36582&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FSharpBrains%2F%7E3%2F288396148%2F</link>
            <description>Daniel Lende and Greg Downey run the though-provoking Neuroanthropology blog. Daniel also teaches a class at University of Notre Dame, and he asked his students to submit group-based blog posts in lieu of the traditional final essays. He explains more on Why A Final Essay When We Can Do This?.
Below you have a spectacular post written by 4 of his students. They show how brain imaging is starting to provide a window into the plasticity (glossary here) of our brains, and how our very own actions impact them. For good and for bad.
Understanding Brain Imaging
--- By Chris Dudley, Matt Gasperetti, Mikey Narvaez, and Sarah Walorski
Do you remember the anti-drug public service announcement from the 1980s that showed an egg frying in a hot pan which represented your brain on drugs?
During the ...</description>
            <author>SharpBrains</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1437333</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 02:55:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1437333</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

