3 ms·
1) I find numbers like “3-fold increased risk” a bit meaningless without knowing the baseline risk. 2) Here is an audio interview with one of the authors of th
by layer8 1y ago
1) I find numbers like “3-fold increased risk” a bit meaningless without knowing the baseline risk.
2) Here is an audio interview with one of the authors of the study: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/19004027 https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/19004027
- glenstein 1y ago>1) I find numbers like “3-fold increased risk” a bit meaningless without knowing the baseline risk. Yeah, I don't see this talked about enough. If it's three fold from 33% baseline to 99%, thats a big deal. If it's a three fold increase from 0.000000033% to 0.000000099%, even the new number is minuscule. It's why, say, blue M&M's increasing risk of cancer by 75% isn't necessarily as big a problem as it sounds.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lisbbb 1y agoMy father-in-law who died of pancreatic cancer in 2016 had excellent oral health. In fact, he never had a single cavity in his entire 76 years of life.
- viraptor 1y agoAnd there are chain smokers without lung issues. Anecdata really doesn't provide us much information.
- Fomite 1y agoThis is, among other things, a quirk of both statistics (models with relative effect measures are better behaved/easier than ones with absolute measures outside toy examples) and early causal inference where we underestimated just how bad smoking is for you. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20010205/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20010205/