Talk:Attributable risk: Difference between revisions
(discussion about work premature) |
|||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|# |This concept is important in e.g. the court, and therefore it must have a clear name. Premature is a good descriptive term for that.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | {{defend|# |This concept is important in e.g. the court, and therefore it must have a clear name. Premature is a good descriptive term for that.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | ||
{{attack invalid|# |Premature mortality should be used only about deaths that are advanced in time substantially. A few day's difference is not important.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | :{{attack invalid|# |Premature mortality should be used only about deaths that are advanced in time substantially. A few day's difference is not important.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | ||
:{{attack|# |Premature deaths is already widely used about all premature deaths, and people using the word for one meaning cannot prevent the usage for another meaning.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | ::{{attack|# |Premature deaths is already widely used about all premature deaths, and people using the word for one meaning cannot prevent the usage for another meaning.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | ||
{{ | {{attack|# |It should be noted that in e.g. air pollution literature, premature death means a substantial advancement of death. Air pollutants may cause deaths in terminal patients that would have died anyway within a few days. So there are at least two different interpretations.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] ([[User talk:Jouni|talk]]) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:49, 9 April 2016
- Note! There are several references to Verses on this page. All the original verses are not here but on the original page heande:Talk:Population attributable fraction (password required).
Abstract to ISEE, Rome 2016
Discussion rules as a method to resolve scientific disputes
Jouni T. Tuomisto, John S. Evans, Arja Asikainen, Pauli Ordén
Introduction: In the science-policy interface, we need better tools to synthesise discussions. We tested whether freely expressed discussions can be synthesised into resolutions using a few simple rules. We aimed at understanding key issues, not at mutual agreement of participants.
Methods: We studied two case studies about controversial topics and reorganised the information produced by participants. The topic was defined as research questions, and all content was evaluated against capability to answer the questions. The content was summarised into statments and, if possible, organised hierarchically so that statements attacked or defended one another. Statements not backed up by data were given little weight.
Results: The first case was a scientific dispute about how to estimate attributable deaths of air pollution in Lelieveld et al., Nature 2015: 525(7569):367-71. Discussion between the authors and critics was reorganised to identify and clarify the essence of the dispute. The information structure produced by the rules showed that the main dispute was about whether excess fraction or etiologic fraction should have been used. In the second case, we reorganised open web discussion about security risks caused by irregular immigrants in Finland in 2015. The discussion was held on a website coinciding with a national TV discussion. Most participants talked about their personal experience, but a few provided links to scientific studies and statistics, providing material for evidence-based discussion almost real-time.
Conclusions: Disputes about even heated and controversial topics can be clarified, understood or even resolved by using a set of rules for participation and information synthesis. Complex topics, openness, or large number of lay people participation did not hamper the process. Such rules should be tested in resolving scientific disputes on a large scale. If successful, the use of science in the society could benefit from practices of open collaboration.
- Primary topic: Health impact assessment and participatory epidemiology
- Secondary topic: Policy and public health
- Presentation type: Oral or poster, no preference
- Do the findings in this presentation, when combined with previous evidence, support new policy?
- Yes. Open collaboration and structured discussions could be used in resolving scientific disputes and improving the use of scientific information in the society.
- No financial conflicts of interest to declare
- All funding and employment resources:
- Tuomisto JT, Asikainen A were employed full time by National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). They and Ordén P were also funded by VN-TEAS-funded project Yhtäköyttä from the Prime Minister's Office, Finland.
- Evans JS was funded by Harvard School of Public Health and Cyprus University of Technology.
Choosing the right fraction
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Attributable fraction should be used in assessing a disease fraction caused by air pollution. It is calculated with the formula AR = (RR-1)/RR, where RR is the risk ratio (risk with exposure divided by risk without exposure). The alternative is to calculate etiologic fraction EF. It cannot be estimated directly from RR, but it is always between (RR-1)/[RRRR/(RR-1)] and 1.
Closing statement:
(Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#: . Attributable fraction cannot be used to estimate probability of causation or fraction of cases advanced in time due to exposure (i.e., premature cases). --Jouni (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--#: . Attributable fraction can be used to estimate population impact (burden of disease) in two counterfactual exposure situations. --Jouni (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
----#: . If the results in Lelieveld et al. 2015 had been characterized as ‘excess deaths’ instead of as ‘premature deaths attributable to air pollution’ much of the confusion that led to concern about our use of the formula could have been avoided.V7 --Heta (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ⇤--#: . It would be preferable to report the results using an outcome measure, such as change in life expectancy, which explicitly reflects the impact of pollution on the timing of death.V9 --Heta (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
Meaning of premature
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Premature mortality is about any death that is advanced in time because of a particular exposure. Similarly, premature case is a case that would occur later or not at all if there was no exposure.
Closing statement: There are different schools here and there can be two different interpretations. The first is according to the statement. The second says that a death must be advanced substantially to be denoted as premature. (Resolved, i.e., a closing statement has been found and updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#: . This concept is important in e.g. the court, and therefore it must have a clear name. Premature is a good descriptive term for that. --Jouni (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|