Relation of probability of causation to relative risk and doubling dose: a methodologic error that has become a social problem.
S Greenland
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90290-3434, USA.
Epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and health physicists frequentlyserve 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 fromepidemiologic data to the probability of causation requestedby courts and administrators. This error has become so pervasivethat it has been incorporated into judicial precedents and legislation.This commentary provides a brief overview of the error and thecontext in which it arises.
This article has been cited by other articles:
R. Allard and J.-F. Boivin Using causal models to show the effect of untestable assumptions on effect estimates in randomized controlled trials
Clinical Trials,
December 1, 2007;
4(6):
611 - 620.
[Abstract][PDF]
R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation
Am J Public Health,
July 1, 2005;
95(S1):
S30 - S34.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
S. Greenland Model-based Estimation of Relative Risks and Other Epidemiologic Measures in Studies of Common Outcomes and in Case-Control Studies
Am. J. Epidemiol.,
August 15, 2004;
160(4):
301 - 305.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]