Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Analytic perspective

Clarifying questions about “risk factors”: predictors versus explanation

Authors: C. Mary Schooling, Heidi E. Jones

Published in: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In biomedical research much effort is thought to be wasted. Recommendations for improvement have largely focused on processes and procedures. Here, we additionally suggest less ambiguity concerning the questions addressed.

Methods

We clarify the distinction between two conflated concepts, prediction and explanation, both encompassed by the term “risk factor”, and give methods and presentation appropriate for each.

Results

Risk prediction studies use statistical techniques to generate contextually specific data-driven models requiring a representative sample that identify people at risk of health conditions efficiently (target populations for interventions). Risk prediction studies do not necessarily include causes (targets of intervention), but may include cheap and easy to measure surrogates or biomarkers of causes. Explanatory studies, ideally embedded within an informative model of reality, assess the role of causal factors which if targeted for interventions, are likely to improve outcomes. Predictive models allow identification of people or populations at elevated disease risk enabling targeting of proven interventions acting on causal factors. Explanatory models allow identification of causal factors to target across populations to prevent disease.

Conclusion

Ensuring a clear match of question to methods and interpretation will reduce research waste due to misinterpretation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573–86.CrossRefPubMed Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening? Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1573–86.CrossRefPubMed
2.
4.
go back to reference Keene D, et al. Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117 411 patients. BMJ. 2014;349:g4379.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Keene D, et al. Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117 411 patients. BMJ. 2014;349:g4379.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP, Tarone R, McLaughlin JK. The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):450–6.CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JP, Tarone R, McLaughlin JK. The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):450–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wilson PW, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1837–47.CrossRefPubMed Wilson PW, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97(18):1837–47.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Turnbull AK, et al. Accurate prediction and validation of response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(20):2270–8.CrossRefPubMed Turnbull AK, et al. Accurate prediction and validation of response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(20):2270–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Lazer D, et al. Big data. The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science. 2014;343(6176):1203–5.CrossRefPubMed Lazer D, et al. Big data. The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science. 2014;343(6176):1203–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Liu J, et al. Predictive value for the Chinese population of the Framingham CHD risk assessment tool compared with the Chinese Multi-Provincial Cohort Study. JAMA. 2004;291(21):2591–9.CrossRefPubMed Liu J, et al. Predictive value for the Chinese population of the Framingham CHD risk assessment tool compared with the Chinese Multi-Provincial Cohort Study. JAMA. 2004;291(21):2591–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRef Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Machiela MJ, et al. Genetic variants related to longer telomere length are associated with increased risk of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):747–54.CrossRefPubMed Machiela MJ, et al. Genetic variants related to longer telomere length are associated with increased risk of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):747–54.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Haycock PC, et al. Association between telomere length and risk of cancer and non-neoplastic diseases: a Mendelian randomization study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):636–51.CrossRefPubMed Haycock PC, et al. Association between telomere length and risk of cancer and non-neoplastic diseases: a Mendelian randomization study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):636–51.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–25.CrossRefPubMed Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–25.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Bareinboim BT, Pearl J. Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence; 2014. R-425. Bareinboim BT, Pearl J. Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence; 2014. R-425.
17.
go back to reference Smith GD, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22.CrossRefPubMed Smith GD, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Holmes MV, Ala-Korpela M, Smith GD. Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(10):577–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Holmes MV, Ala-Korpela M, Smith GD. Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(10):577–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Lipsitch M, Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lipsitch M, Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Schooling CM. Concordance with known causal effects is a potential validity measure for observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:4–6.CrossRefPubMed Schooling CM. Concordance with known causal effects is a potential validity measure for observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:4–6.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Petitti DP, Sidney S. Postmenopausal estrogen use and heart disease. NEJM. 1986;315(131–2). Petitti DP, Sidney S. Postmenopausal estrogen use and heart disease. NEJM. 1986;315(131–2).
22.
go back to reference The Coronary Drug Project. Findings leading to discontinuation of the 2.5-mg day estrogen group. The coronary Drug Project Research Group. JAMA. 1973;226(6):652–7.CrossRef The Coronary Drug Project. Findings leading to discontinuation of the 2.5-mg day estrogen group. The coronary Drug Project Research Group. JAMA. 1973;226(6):652–7.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Petitti D. Commentary: hormone replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: four lessons. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(3):461–3.CrossRefPubMed Petitti D. Commentary: hormone replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: four lessons. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(3):461–3.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(27):7345–52.CrossRefPubMed Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(27):7345–52.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Westreich D, Greenland S. The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177(4):292–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Westreich D, Greenland S. The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177(4):292–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Hernan MA, Alonso A, Logroscino G. Cigarette smoking and dementia: potential selection bias in the elderly. Epidemiology. 2008;19(3):448–50.CrossRefPubMed Hernan MA, Alonso A, Logroscino G. Cigarette smoking and dementia: potential selection bias in the elderly. Epidemiology. 2008;19(3):448–50.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Clarifying questions about “risk factors”: predictors versus explanation
Authors
C. Mary Schooling
Heidi E. Jones
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1742-7622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-018-0080-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 1/2018 Go to the issue