Rules of inference in epidemiology

摘要: Is there common ground between lawyers and epidemiologists in the ways they reach conclusions about causes? One notable similarity is dependence of both fields on subjective judgments. An equally contrast their modes procedure for contending with changing environment. In law rate change, if not glacial, firmly constrained by precedent. epidemiology little precedent, must defer to a torrent new knowledge; evidence at hand making judgments cause changes from year even month month. Thus change assumes central place an epidemiologist who would apply rules attributing causality. Indeed, strict are available; properties our observations values we decide attach them (criteria) serve only as guidelines. Cause established continuous evolving process. Some criteria themselves depend evolution processes which lead us To attribute any point time take snapshot. A wellbased conclusion produced unfolding continuing serial theme carried this way that constant replication. Hence single study seldom, ever, conclusive. My concept or determinant factor given situation has effect brings change. epidemiology, health populations, recognize possible presence its coincidence, beyond bounds chance, That say, suspect (X) outcome (Y) statistically associated. well-established set conventions guiding decisions association available texts statistical inference will be further discussed here. Two inhere relations effect. Both present