6 ms·

This shows a severe misunderstanding of statistics. The original paper (here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/

This shows a severe misunderstanding of statistics. The original paper (here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.abstract -- the abstract is enough to deduce the conclusion) is a simple statistical analysis of mutation probability in certain cell types. It's basically saying that many cancers are not necessarily influenced by external factors and can be predicted by nothing more than the number of cell divisions and the probability of DNA mutation compounded. That, in itself, is a fascinating scientific result. Arguing against the statistics here is probably not a good idea, unless there was a serious error in the math or an order of magnitude error in the probability of mutation. Certainly there are other possibilities of error in the data or methodology. But the article in opposition (OP) is doing something odd that doesn't appear to be a scientific argument: it's railing against the language and the implications of the very concept of statistical analysis applied to the problem. It's assuming that because we discovered that, perhaps, cancer has a certain probability of occurring independent of external factors, that it will somehow slow research or cause us to throw up our hands and give up on prevention strategies or research. I don't think that's the case. Rather than understanding the absolutely fascinating statistical analysis here, the OP article comes across as reactionary and unscientific. Assuming the data is sound, the statistical analysis is profound. Most often, statistics such as that are profoundly misunderstood as well: people have an incredible capacity for attribution bias and data disbelief. This simply underscores the need for a better education in basic statistics as well as science across the board.

yread 12y ago
> That, in itself, is a fascinating scientific result There are plenty of problems with the original paper see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/224.full http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/224.full http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04605 http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04605 http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr231_E.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr231_E.pdf
- jmenter 12y ago
  Did you know that your last link is the original link for this thread?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- chockablock 12y ago
  Thanks for these links. The Science link is basically a retraction from the journalist who wrote the original summary article. She quotes the study authors making excuses about not having enough time to explain the subtleties under press deadlines. I've never read anything quite like it. It seems everyone agrees that Figure 1 of the Vogelstein paper, showing the striking correlation between Log(cancer incidence) and Log(# stem cell divisions) was really a beautiful result. But then things fell apart with the further analysis and (especially) interpretation. The Altenberg paper on Arxiv looks like exactly the sort of careful treatment that the original paper should have gotten in the review process. (MIT's Aaron Meyer raised some of these points in a blog post around the time of publication http://www.ameyer.me/science/2015/01/02/vogel.html http://www.ameyer.me/science/2015/01/02/vogel.html )
  - epistasis 12y ago
    >The Science link is basically a retraction from the journalist who wrote the original summary article. She quotes the study authors making excuses about not having enough time to explain the subtleties under press deadlines. I've never read anything quite like it. I don't agree with that characterization of the Science news article at all. It's a summary of the secondary reaction to the press coverage, but I can't construe it as a retraction of the original news coverage. For example, here's what David Spiegelhalter says in it, who's entire research lately has been on accurately communicating risk: >In this case, he felt, “the gist of the coverage is very reasonable—most cases of cancer are due to chance.” I too feel that the coverage was quite accurate, perhaps the most accurate that I've seen of a science tidbit in quite some time. If one's entire research program is on how to minimize environmental causes of cancer, I can see how it would feel like one's research was being minimized entirely, and require a vigorous defense. However, these "defenses", in particular Aaron Meyer's, seem to be fact free. In contrast, the epidemiology world seems to agree almost exactly with the Vogelstein paper's estimate of 65% chance, 35% modifiable causes (though perhaps somewhat by chance, as their measurements are not exactly of the same thing): http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67725-2/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... If there's broadly accepted epidemiological data that contradicts the molecular approach from Vogelstein, I would love to see it.
Shinkei 12y ago
The severe misunderstanding of statistics is in the original paper. I have a much more detailed post here, but basically just because many types of cancer are stochastic in their risk, doesn't mean that the incidence of cancer overall is stochastic. In fact, the most prevalent cancers are deterministic as mentioned in the WHO release.
orting 12y ago
A specific critique raised in the press release from IARC is that the study has an "emphasis on very rare cancers (e.g. osteosarcoma, medulloblastoma) that together make only a small contribution to the total cancer burden." and that it "excludes [...] common cancers for which incidence differs substantially between populations and over time." So it sounds like the generalization hinted at in the abstract shows a bigger misunderstanding of statistics than any in the press release. Would be nice if the paper was not paywalled, so we could actually read it.
- FrojoS 12y ago
  I put the full paper in pastebin: http://pastebin.com/GH1ZY8Zx http://pastebin.com/GH1ZY8Zx Didnt read it, so not sure if its sufficiently understandable without the figures. Prob not.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    What's HN's stance on posting a paywalled article to pastebin like this? If I were to guess, I'd think this to be frowned upon.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Why would you think that?
    - matznerd 12y ago
      I frown upon it because I prefer the PDF :P
      - LispShmisp 12y ago
        Here you go: http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/tomasetti-science-2015.pdf http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/tomasetti-sci...
- rjurney 12y ago
  You're right. You might say "most cancers are caused by bad luck," and across the set of types of cancers... that might be the case. But if you were to say, "Most cases of cancer are caused by behavioral or environmental factors" you'd be saying something entirely different.

yread 12y ago

> That, in itself, is a fascinating scientific result There are plenty of problems with the original paper see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/224.full http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/224.full http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04605 http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04605 http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr231_E.pdf http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr231_E.pdf

jmenter 12y ago
Did you know that your last link is the original link for this thread?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
chockablock 12y ago
Thanks for these links. The Science link is basically a retraction from the journalist who wrote the original summary article. She quotes the study authors making excuses about not having enough time to explain the subtleties under press deadlines. I've never read anything quite like it. It seems everyone agrees that Figure 1 of the Vogelstein paper, showing the striking correlation between Log(cancer incidence) and Log(# stem cell divisions) was really a beautiful result. But then things fell apart with the further analysis and (especially) interpretation. The Altenberg paper on Arxiv looks like exactly the sort of careful treatment that the original paper should have gotten in the review process. (MIT's Aaron Meyer raised some of these points in a blog post around the time of publication http://www.ameyer.me/science/2015/01/02/vogel.html http://www.ameyer.me/science/2015/01/02/vogel.html )
- epistasis 12y ago
  >The Science link is basically a retraction from the journalist who wrote the original summary article. She quotes the study authors making excuses about not having enough time to explain the subtleties under press deadlines. I've never read anything quite like it. I don't agree with that characterization of the Science news article at all. It's a summary of the secondary reaction to the press coverage, but I can't construe it as a retraction of the original news coverage. For example, here's what David Spiegelhalter says in it, who's entire research lately has been on accurately communicating risk: >In this case, he felt, “the gist of the coverage is very reasonable—most cases of cancer are due to chance.” I too feel that the coverage was quite accurate, perhaps the most accurate that I've seen of a science tidbit in quite some time. If one's entire research program is on how to minimize environmental causes of cancer, I can see how it would feel like one's research was being minimized entirely, and require a vigorous defense. However, these "defenses", in particular Aaron Meyer's, seem to be fact free. In contrast, the epidemiology world seems to agree almost exactly with the Vogelstein paper's estimate of 65% chance, 35% modifiable causes (though perhaps somewhat by chance, as their measurements are not exactly of the same thing): http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67725-2/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... If there's broadly accepted epidemiological data that contradicts the molecular approach from Vogelstein, I would love to see it.

Shinkei 12y ago

The severe misunderstanding of statistics is in the original paper. I have a much more detailed post here, but basically just because many types of cancer are stochastic in their risk, doesn't mean that the incidence of cancer overall is stochastic. In fact, the most prevalent cancers are deterministic as mentioned in the WHO release.

orting 12y ago

A specific critique raised in the press release from IARC is that the study has an "emphasis on very rare cancers (e.g. osteosarcoma, medulloblastoma) that together make only a small contribution to the total cancer burden." and that it "excludes [...] common cancers for which incidence differs substantially between populations and over time." So it sounds like the generalization hinted at in the abstract shows a bigger misunderstanding of statistics than any in the press release. Would be nice if the paper was not paywalled, so we could actually read it.

FrojoS 12y ago
I put the full paper in pastebin: http://pastebin.com/GH1ZY8Zx http://pastebin.com/GH1ZY8Zx Didnt read it, so not sure if its sufficiently understandable without the figures. Prob not.
- smtddr 12y ago
  What's HN's stance on posting a paywalled article to pastebin like this? If I were to guess, I'd think this to be frowned upon.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Why would you think that?
  - matznerd 12y ago
    I frown upon it because I prefer the PDF :P
    - LispShmisp 12y ago
      Here you go: http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/tomasetti-science-2015.pdf http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/csc-reading-group/tomasetti-sci...
rjurney 12y ago
You're right. You might say "most cancers are caused by bad luck," and across the set of types of cancers... that might be the case. But if you were to say, "Most cases of cancer are caused by behavioral or environmental factors" you'd be saying something entirely different.