Relation of probability of causation to relative risk and doubling dose: a methodologic error that has become a social problem.
- 1 August 1999
- journal article
- Published by American Public Health Association in American Journal of Public Health
- Vol. 89 (8) , 1166-1169
- https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.8.1166
Abstract
Epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and health physicists frequently serve as expert consultants to lawyers, courts, and administrators. One of the most common errors committed by experts is to equate, without qualification, the attributable fraction estimated from epidemiologic data to the probability of causation requested by courts and administrators. This error has become so pervasive that it has been incorporated into judicial precedents and legislation. This commentary provides a brief overview of the error and the context in which it arises.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Importance of Specifying the Underlying Biological Model in Estimating The Probability of CausationHealth Physics, 1999
- A Compensation Scheme for Nuclear Industry Workers in the United KingdomHealth Physics, 1998
- Average age at first occurrence as an alternative occurrence parameter in epidemiology.International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997
- Compensating lung cancer patients occupationally exposed to coal tar pitch volatiles.Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1996
- Estimability and estimation of expected years of life lost due to a hazardous exposureStatistics in Medicine, 1991
- The Probability of Causation under a Stochastic Model for Individual RiskPublished by JSTOR ,1989
- Estimability and estimation of excess and etiologic fractionsStatistics in Medicine, 1989
- THE AUTHOR REPLIESAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1988
- Assigned Shares in Compensation for Radiation‐Related CancersRisk Analysis, 1986
- Identifiability, Exchangeability, and Epidemiological ConfoundingInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1986