Resisting the urge to act on random patterns: a reply to Schenker et al

Our plain-English summary of Resisting the urge to act on random patterns: a reply to Schenker et al, by D.W. Berman, L.A. Cox, D.A. Popken (Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2013).

The study

• Authors: D.W. Berman, L.A. Cox, D.A. Popken
• Journal: Critical Reviews in Toxicology
• Published: 2013;43(7):609-10
• Type of article: Review
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a short reply, labeled a review article by the journal, that presented no new data. The authors answered a letter by Schenker et al., who had criticized two earlier papers by the authors about Pan et al. (2005). Pan et al. was a California study of mesothelioma and living near naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), measured as proximity to ultramafic rocks. Schenker et al. had said the authors misinterpreted Pan et al. and built inappropriate comparison models. The authors argued that the association Pan et al. reported was likely spurious or coincidental, not causal. They argued that factors affecting where people live can create false-positive associations in such study designs, and that regression adjustment does not avoid this problem but makes it worse. They said their earlier simulations found similar statistical 'effects' for other sources, including census-tract centroids, locations of fatal traffic accidents and randomly generated points. They said the method could just as easily link mesothelioma to red barns. The authors concluded that policy should rest on causal analysis, and that urging officials to act on such associations is a recipe for ineffective policy.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: A reply to a letter to the editor. The journal header labels it a review article, but it is a commentary that reports no new data.
• Who was studied: No people were studied. The reply discusses Pan et al. (2005), a case-control study of residential proximity to naturally occurring asbestos and mesothelioma risk in California.
• Exposure: Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), measured in Pan et al. as residential proximity to ultramafic rocks. No fiber type is named.
• Main results:
  • The authors responded to Schenker et al.'s criticisms. Schenker et al. had said the authors misinterpreted Pan et al.'s conclusions, created inappropriate comparison models, and lacked understanding of the public health process.
  • The authors argued, as an opinion and not a new finding, that the association between NOA and mesothelioma reported by Pan et al. is likely spurious or coincidental, not causal.
  • The authors argued that factors affecting where people live affect the chance of a false-positive association in studies designed like Pan et al. These factors include socio-economic status, education, cultural or religious affiliation, ethnicity and occupation.
  • The authors argued that regression adjustment does not avoid this spatial problem but makes it worse.
  • The authors described their earlier simulation work. They said it found similar statistical regression 'effects' when proximity was measured to other sources, including census-tract centroids, fatal traffic accident locations, and randomly generated locations.
  • The authors argued that the methodology is almost certain to produce false-positive associations. They said it could just as likely link mesothelioma risk to proximity to red barns as to ultramafic rocks.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that sound policy should be based on analysis of causal impacts. They concluded that suggesting policy makers act on associations for which no causal information was provided is a recipe for ineffective policy.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Reply to Mirabelli et al. Is Mesothelioma Unrelated to the Lung Asbestos Burden? Comment on "Visonà et al. Inorganic Fiber Lung Burden in Subjects with Occupational and/or Anthropogenic Environmental Asbestos Exposure in Broni (Pavia, Northern Italy): An SEM-EDS Study on Autoptic Samples. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2053" — S.D. Visonà, S. Capella, et al. (2021)
• Reply to Comment on Małgorzata Krówczyńska and Ewa Wilk. Environmental and Occupational Exposure to Asbestos as a Result of Consumption and Use in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2611 — M. Krówczyńska, E. Wilk (2020)
• The incidence of asbestos bodies in the lungs at random necropsies in Montreal — L. Anjilvel, W.M. Thurlbeck (1966)
• Insulation workers in Belfast. 1. Comparison of a random sample with a control population — W.F. Wallace, J.H. Langlands (1971)
• Computer-aided volumetric assessment of malignant pleural mesothelioma on CT using a random walk-based method — M. Chen, E. Helm, et al. (2017)
• Effects of asbestos on the random migration of rabbit alveolar macrophages — Q.N. Myrvik, E.A. Knox, et al. (1985)

Browse more research in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, or return to medical research.