The Bradford Hill Criteria Don’t Hold Up

By Zad | September 6, 2018

The Bradford Hill Criteria are commonly used as a checklist to argue for causality when randomized trials aren’t possible. However, the originator of these viewpoints never intended for them to be used this way. In this post, I examine the shortcomings of using these viewpoints as a checklist in the real world.

Read More

Is Moderate Carbohydrate Intake the Best?

By Zad | August 19, 2018

Recently, a giant paper on carbohydrate consumption and mortality was published in The Lancet. The paper discussed the findings of a prospective cohort study and a meta-analysis of several cohort studies. Studies like this are often the ones that generate the most hype, which is always bizarre to me given

Read More

Exercise, Mental Health, and Big Data

By Zad | August 14, 2018

Recently, a large cross-sectional study that investigated the relationship between exercise frequency and mental health was published in The Lancet Psychiatry and also happened to set Twitter on fire. I want to discuss the good and the not so good.

Read More

Misuse of Standard Error in Clinical Trials

By Zad | August 7, 2018

Analytic statistics are commonly used to make inferences from the data. However, they are often misused because of misconceptions about what they do. In this post, I discuss how standard error is commonly misused in clinical trials.

Read More

High Statistical Power Can Be Deceiving

By Zad | July 23, 2018

Most studies aim to achieve high statistical power and precision by increasing sample sizes. Many researchers will conclude that there is no effect if they get a nonsignificant result in a high-powered study. In this post, I discuss why this is incorrect.

Read More