Understanding statistical principles in correlation, causation and moderation in human disease

Michael P. Jones, Marjorie M. Walker, John R. Attia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

We are all familiar with the expression “correlation does not imply causation”, but often causation is exactly what we need to determine. For example, one may want to understand whether the use of MP3 players with earbuds causes partial hearing loss, whether holding mobile telephones to the ear causes brain cancer or whether parents’ exposure to toxic chemicals during conception or pregnancy causes birth defects in children. Non-causal risk factors can be useful, but eventually, what we really want to understand is causation. Because the causal connection between exposure to risk factor and disease outcome is often complex or poorly understood, what researchers can truly study is whether an association exists or not. This article explains how we can move from correlation and association to causal interpretation of data, and what statistical evidence is needed to support causal conclusions.
LanguageEnglish
Pages104-106
Number of pages3
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume207
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Causality
MP3-Player
Statistical Data Interpretation
Cell Phones
Poisons
Hearing Loss
Brain Neoplasms
Ear
Parents
Research Personnel
Pregnancy

Cite this

@article{b63a17e65b6047e79af0434e8404589b,
title = "Understanding statistical principles in correlation, causation and moderation in human disease",
abstract = "We are all familiar with the expression “correlation does not imply causation”, but often causation is exactly what we need to determine. For example, one may want to understand whether the use of MP3 players with earbuds causes partial hearing loss, whether holding mobile telephones to the ear causes brain cancer or whether parents’ exposure to toxic chemicals during conception or pregnancy causes birth defects in children. Non-causal risk factors can be useful, but eventually, what we really want to understand is causation. Because the causal connection between exposure to risk factor and disease outcome is often complex or poorly understood, what researchers can truly study is whether an association exists or not. This article explains how we can move from correlation and association to causal interpretation of data, and what statistical evidence is needed to support causal conclusions.",
author = "Jones, {Michael P.} and Walker, {Marjorie M.} and Attia, {John R.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.5694/mja16.00697",
language = "English",
volume = "207",
pages = "104--106",
journal = "Medical Journal of Australia",
issn = "1326-5377",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",
number = "3",

}

Understanding statistical principles in correlation, causation and moderation in human disease. / Jones, Michael P.; Walker, Marjorie M.; Attia, John R.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 207, No. 3, 2017, p. 104-106.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding statistical principles in correlation, causation and moderation in human disease

AU - Jones, Michael P.

AU - Walker, Marjorie M.

AU - Attia, John R.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - We are all familiar with the expression “correlation does not imply causation”, but often causation is exactly what we need to determine. For example, one may want to understand whether the use of MP3 players with earbuds causes partial hearing loss, whether holding mobile telephones to the ear causes brain cancer or whether parents’ exposure to toxic chemicals during conception or pregnancy causes birth defects in children. Non-causal risk factors can be useful, but eventually, what we really want to understand is causation. Because the causal connection between exposure to risk factor and disease outcome is often complex or poorly understood, what researchers can truly study is whether an association exists or not. This article explains how we can move from correlation and association to causal interpretation of data, and what statistical evidence is needed to support causal conclusions.

AB - We are all familiar with the expression “correlation does not imply causation”, but often causation is exactly what we need to determine. For example, one may want to understand whether the use of MP3 players with earbuds causes partial hearing loss, whether holding mobile telephones to the ear causes brain cancer or whether parents’ exposure to toxic chemicals during conception or pregnancy causes birth defects in children. Non-causal risk factors can be useful, but eventually, what we really want to understand is causation. Because the causal connection between exposure to risk factor and disease outcome is often complex or poorly understood, what researchers can truly study is whether an association exists or not. This article explains how we can move from correlation and association to causal interpretation of data, and what statistical evidence is needed to support causal conclusions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027396944&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5694/mja16.00697

DO - 10.5694/mja16.00697

M3 - Article

VL - 207

SP - 104

EP - 106

JO - Medical Journal of Australia

T2 - Medical Journal of Australia

JF - Medical Journal of Australia

SN - 1326-5377

IS - 3

ER -