False-Positive Results in Cancer Epidemiology: A Plea for Epistemological Modesty
Open Access
- 8 July 2008
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 100 (14) , 988-995
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn191
Abstract
False-positive results are inherent in the scientific process of testing hypotheses concerning the determinants of cancer and other human illnesses. Although much of what is known about the etiology of human cancers has arisen from well-conducted epidemiological studies, epidemiology has been increasingly criticized for producing findings that are often sensationalized in the media and fail to be upheld in subsequent studies. Herein we describe examples from cancer epidemiology of likely false-positive findings and discuss conditions under which such results may occur. We suggest general guidelines or principles, including the endorsement of editorial policies requiring the prominent listing of study caveats, which may help reduce the reporting of misleading results. Increased epistemological humility regarding findings in epidemiology would go a long way to diminishing the detrimental effects of false-positive results on the allocation of limited research resources, on the advancement of knowledge of the causes and prevention of cancer, and on the scientific reputation of epidemiology and would help to prevent oversimplified interpretations of results by the media and the public.Keywords
This publication has 80 references indexed in Scilit:
- DDT and Breast Cancer in Young Women: New Data on the Significance of Age at ExposureEnvironmental Health Perspectives, 2007
- A Bayesian Measure of the Probability of False Discovery in Genetic Epidemiology StudiesAmerican Journal of Human Genetics, 2007
- Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controlsNature, 2007
- Confidence Intervals and P‐Values for Meta‐Analysis with Publication BiasBiometrics, 2006
- Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional studyBMJ, 2006
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical ResearchJAMA, 2005
- Mortality from tumours in workers in an acrylic fibre factoryOccupational Medicine, 1993
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Coffee and Cancer of the PancreasNew England Journal of Medicine, 1981