Determining causation in epidemiology.

F Scheutz; S Poulsen

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02006.x

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10385353

Determining causation in epidemiology.

F Scheutz·S Poulsen

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Epidemiology uses many methods to identify the causes of disease, although it remains impossible to provide proof that any specific factor is a cause. We are only able to present supporting evidence. We subscribe to the pragmatic view that a factor is indeed a cause if its elimination improves health. We describe a deterministic causal model, where disease develops when the necessary component causes exist in one of several possible constellations of causes, each of which constitutes a sufficient set of component causes. If we accept this concept of disease causation, the notion of multifactorial disease becomes meaningless. We should rather turn our attention to component causes that we can eliminate in order to improve public health. The complex nature of diseases and the fact that it is only possible to present supporting evidence for a causal relationship are some of our reasons for basing the identification of causes on a theoretic model or framework. The purpose is to construct and present a model that is complex enough to formalize basic intuitions concerning cause and effect. Finally, conceptual frameworks provide guidance for the use of multivariable statistical techniques and may assist in the interpretation of the results.

Explore related subjects

Causality Epidemiologic Methods Humans Logic Models, Statistical Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

F Scheutz, S Poulsen. 1999. Determining causation in epidemiology.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02006.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

The causal relationship between multiple cardiovascular diseases and glioblastoma: A Mendelian randomization study.

Observational studies suggest an association between glioblastoma (GBM) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but a causal relationship remains unestablished. This study aimed to investigate the causal link between multiple CVDs and GBM risk. The inverse variance weighted method indicated that all 18 CVDs had significant causal associations with GBM (P < .05). Genetically predicted CVDs were uniformly associated with a lower risk of GBM (odds ratio < 1), identifying them as potential protective factors. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the absence of significant heterogeneity or horizontal pleiotropy, and the MR-Steiger test validated the correct causal direction. This Mendelian randomization (MR) study provides evidence that a range of CVDs are causally associated with a decreased risk of developing GBM. These findings suggest shared biological pathways and offer new insights for understanding GBM etiology. We conducted a 2-sample MR analysis using publicly available genome-wide association study data. GBM was the outcome, and 18 cardiovascular-related traits (including coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and venous thromboembolism) were exposures. Instrumental variables were single-nucleotide polymorphisms significantly associated with exposures (P < 5 × 10-8). The primary analysis used the inverse variance weighted method, supplemented with MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode methods. Sensitivity analyses, including Cochran Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, leave-one-out analysis, and MR-Steiger directionality test, were performed to ensure robustness.

Causality↗

PubMed2007

Analysing and interpreting competing risk data.

When competing risks are present, two types of analysis can be performed: modelling the cause specific hazard and modelling the hazard of the subdistribution. This paper contrasts these two methods and presents the benefits of each. The interpretation is specific to the analysis performed. When modelling the cause specific hazard, one performs the analysis under the assumption that the competing risks do not exist. This could be beneficial when, for example, the main interest is whether the treatment works in general. In modelling the hazard of the subdistribution, one incorporates the competing risks in the analysis. This analysis compares the observed incidence of the event of interest between groups. The latter analysis is specific to the structure of the observed data and it can be generalized only to another population with similar competing risks.

Causality↗

PubMed2007

Evaluating candidate agents of selective pressure for cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis is the most common lethal single-gene mutation in people of European descent, with a carrier frequency upwards of 2%. Based upon molecular research, resistances in the heterozygote to cholera and typhoid fever have been proposed to explain the persistence of the mutation. Using a population genetic model parameterized with historical demographic and epidemiological data, we show that neither cholera nor typhoid fever provided enough historical selective pressure to produce the modern incidence of cystic fibrosis. However, we demonstrate that the European tuberculosis pandemic beginning in the seventeenth century would have provided sufficient historical, geographically appropriate selective pressure under conservative assumptions. Tuberculosis has been underappreciated as a possible selective agent in producing cystic fibrosis but has clinical, molecular and now historical, geographical and epidemiological support. Implications for the future trajectory of cystic fibrosis are discussed. Our result supports the importance of novel investigations into the role of arylsulphatase B deficiency in cystic fibrosis and tuberculosis.

Causality↗